Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Those errors are just for the homepage, albeit, there may be much less (once a tag is left open, it tends to really confuse the validator).  I'd clean up the whole site for good measure; I'm a big fan of SEO PowerSuite's on-page tools when doing this sort of thing.

The line breaks don't all need to be totally replaced, the big gaps at the top just seemed a bit excessive.  That particular recommendation is just based in my own superstitions, and those of others, but is based on this: the first 1/3 rule comes into play so much in SEO (weighting content placed high on a page, early in a tag, etc.); condensing the header section to a more sane level seems sensible.  Some SEO auditers, such as WebCEO, will  also yell at you if your TITLE tag doesn't immediately follow HEAD, for what I'd expect to be a similar thought; although again, not as scientific of a claim to my knowledge as valid code (which absolutely matters).

This is odd. I don't see the 'https' when doing the site: search, but I do get the 'Untitled' result for your homepage when searching for your brand name. How long ago did your designer make the change? This seems like the kind of problem that could just go away on it's own... I can say that your source really doesn't look out of line to a point to where it should warrant this sort of issue.

Not necessarily your one path to salvation (and keep your money on this if it does help gain some ground), but I'd personally start with cleaning up the source:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnlpca.com%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&
doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2

79 validation errors could definitely confuse crawlers about how things are organized, and imply usability issues.  I'd also do something about the extreme # of unnecessary line breaks.  I recently pushed a legal niche site up from page 5 to page 1 on a very competitive, short-tail phrase with not a lot more than cleaning up ugly code.

I don't know any one great source for this, but for the most part, a good reputation management process isn't all that complex, it looks like this:

1.) Identify what existing content has the best potential to rank (social media seems to do great, review sites that allow you to moderate or at least respond, etc...  pretty much anything that isn't scamreport)

2.) Identify how you can easily get some more good content out there (ie. getting permission to syndicate some of your clients' reviews to big sites is pretty popular).  You can also put some keyword-rich content out there, though, it's generally looked down upon to flat out fabricate reviews, so careful there.  Syndication can be especially helpful here (think: press release about the posting of a client reviews section somewhere, linking to a handful of your social profiles).  I've also found that profiles on social sites are much easier to move up for your company name than just flat out starting a fresh blog.

3.) Build lots of good links to the positive content.  This tends to be much easier than you think, as your company name is nowhere near as competitive a phrase as what you might normally try to optimize for.  The key is just to have a lot of it (at least 20 pieces to start), as some may not respond as quickly / effectively to your link building as you might hope.

That should about do it.  If you have a scenario where the reviews are flat out dishonest and spammed again and again by the same person, some webmasters will be receptive; many won't, but it never hurts to bring it up with them once all the same.

This is exactly right..  there was actually a Search Engine Land post not too long ago with a title exactly along the lines of "Bing Has It's Own Version of Panda"

Take a look at the WordPress plugin, ALL IN ONE SEO.  WordPress is notorious for this issue by default (blog index, archive index, category index, post itself will all conflict).  If the issue is between the articles itself, I posted a YouMoz yesterday that explains how a PHP-savvy person could use the levenshtein() function to identify which articles conflict in your database.

A quick Google search proves that this is not at all true (like most online SEO advice ).

On the other hand, having 200 words of really strong content on a page can really help your rankings.

I'm not 100% familiar with all that ALL IN ONE SEO PACK is doing there, but usually when you use mod_rewrite (most commonly that I've seen amongst SEO's to rewrite to 'www'), it IS a 301 redirect.

Agree here.  Using the free newswires is a waste of time, but using PRWeb/PRNewsWire correctly seems to yield consistent results (with emphasis on 'correctly' here, as there is a lot to writing and distributing a solid release).