Dan has offered a great reply. I would like to support and further what Keri shared.
We are in the process of re-designing the website to make it more user friendly but as it is right now, I think is not to bad. As far as the content goes, we need to make improvements as well.
You both mentioned EGOL so I'll share what I am pretty sure his response would be. "Not to bad" is absolutely horrible. Your goal should be to build a world-class site.
World-class does not have to mean you spent enormous amounts of money on the site itself. It means you have a professional look and feel to your site. The site itself should have no broken links, it should be W3C compliant mainly to ensure the pages look the same in all browsers, have a mobile version, have a crisp and clean look to it and flow smoothly.
Before you spend any money on link building put 100% of the focus on your site. Keep at it until you have reviewed the site over and over again with intense scrutiny on all aspects of quality. I know people who will look at a site and if the copyright date in the footer shows 2010 they will bounce. That's extreme, but often when working with a website you have very little information about how the company really operates. If you find any mistakes or errors on their home page then it is not unreasonable to conclude the site has sloppy business practices.
I start to think that there is no right or wrong in SEO just some general rules and lots of testing.
That is certainly true in some areas of SEO. There is a science of SEO which deals with rankings but there is an art to SEO which involves interactions with people. How SEOs choose to approach others and ask for links is artistic. At this point the scientific SEO says "no, it's still science! You try various methods, measure the results and work with the most effective solution". My response is there are both scientific and artistic components to solid SEO and the science is not hard-science like physics but a softer science like medicine (compared to physics).