A REBUILD NOBODY CAN AFFORD TO GET WRONG.

Here it means the shape of the job rather than the size of the company: several offers that each need their own page, more than one person who has to approve the result, and an existing site with traffic and links worth protecting. That job is harder than a bigger company's brochure site. If what you have is a global multi-region rollout with a procurement process, say so on the call and we will tell you honestly whether we are the right size for it.

The scope is fixed in writing before any code, which turns most of the argument into a decision made once rather than a debate repeated per page. From day three there is a working site on a private URL, so feedback is somebody pointing at a real page instead of describing a feeling about a mockup. One person on your side owns the final call, and we ask who that is before we start.

Yes, and it is usually the fastest version of the job. If you have a brand system we build to it rather than around it. If your team writes, they write and we structure. What we need is one named person to answer questions and one place the assets live, because the pace of a build is set almost entirely by how fast the answers come back.

Yes, and we take it page by page rather than trusting an importer, because an importer is how a thousand posts arrive with broken images and no formatting. Content, images, metadata and the URL structure all come across. For a genuinely large library we do a sample of a few dozen first, you check it, and then the rest runs against a mapping you have already approved.

For the parts a website owns, yes: forms deliver into your CRM or inbox, analytics and tag management go in properly, and a booking or payment tool is embedded where it belongs. What we do not sell is a workflow or automation programme behind it. That used to be an offer here and it is not any more, so if the real project is systems integration you want somebody whose main job that is.

Yes, and for a large site it is often the safer call. A section moves, the redirects for it go live, it is watched for a fortnight, then the next one follows. It costs more in total than one launch because the two sites have to coexist and stay consistent, and it is worth it when a bad week of traffic costs more than the difference.

Then they can, and nothing has to be renegotiated. The code, the design, the content structure and the configuration are assigned to you on final payment, it runs on your hosting under your accounts, and it is built on a mainstream stack rather than anything proprietary to us. There is no licence you keep paying for and nothing held back as leverage.

Yes, before anything confidential is shared, and we will sign yours rather than insisting on ours. Read the agreement either way: it is written per client, and the schedule, the scope and the payment terms all live in that document rather than in anything published on this site.

The build follows the practical parts as a matter of course: semantic markup, real headings, keyboard navigation, contrast that passes, alt text and labelled forms. What we do not do is certify you, and nobody honest will promise a legal compliance outcome from a build alone. If you need a formal WCAG audit, that is a specialist doing it independently after launch, which is the right way round.

No, and you should be suspicious of a web studio that says yes. We build on a stack with a small attack surface, keep dependencies current, and hand over the configuration, but a penetration test is a separate discipline and it belongs with a firm that only does that. If your policy requires one we will work to its findings.