These are not six versions of the same website. Each one is a different bet about what the site is for — who it serves, and which part of the business it grows. Pick the bet first; the styling follows.
rasasurvey.com lists ten project categories — airport and port, hydropower, pipeline, transmission line, mining, parcellary — and not a single project inside them. No client names, no dates, no scope, no numbers. The Technology page carries one instrument.
Thirty years of surveying the country's expressways, bridges, dams and grid corridors, and almost none of it is on the web. That is not a design problem. It is the most valuable unbuilt asset in the business, and it is why a procurement officer comparing three firms cannot currently choose RASA on evidence.
Most website reviews collapse into taste. This one shouldn't. There are two separate questions and they have different right answers.
Winning tenders? Selling equipment? Proving national coverage? Fixing the content bottleneck? This is a business decision, and it belongs to RASA. The five concepts each answer it differently.
Colour, type, imagery, motion. Easy to change later and cheap to iterate. Do not let this drive Decision A — a direction that looks good but serves the wrong audience is the expensive mistake.
Practical note: it is completely legitimate to say "the strategy of 04, the look of 02." That is a useful answer. What is not useful is "the header of 02 with the colours of 04 and the layout of 01" — that produces a website nobody designed.
Look at any well-made contractor or engineering website and you will find the same skeleton: photo hero with two buttons, icon trust strip, sectors, services grid, featured projects, numbered process, testimonials, FAQ, fat footer. It repeats because it works — it is the path a B2B buyer expects to walk, and deviating from it costs trust rather than earning attention.
What makes those sites feel interchangeable is not the skeleton. It is that the contents of the slots are fungible — "450+ projects", "98% satisfaction", "Quality Craftsmanship" could belong to any company in any country.
Put CLLEX, the Bataan–Cavite Interlink Bridge, the RIEGL miniVUX-1UAV, PRS92 and ±7 cm into those same slots and the identical layout stops being generic. Conventional structure, specific substance. That is what Concept 06 is, and it is why it is the recommendation.
06 is the recommendation. The other five exist so the choice is informed — and so their best sections can be borrowed into whichever one wins.
These are not mutually exclusive. If 06 wins — and it probably should — the strongest sections of the others drop straight into it as modules, without changing the skeleton: 02's project map becomes a section above Featured Projects. 04's qualifier replaces the "Get a Quote" form. 03's Register of Works becomes the Projects page behind "View All". 05's field reports become the News section. That is the real outcome of building six — not one winner and five wasted, but a conventional frame with four unusually good parts bolted in.
"Which do you prefer?" produces taste, hedging, and a Frankenstein brief. Ask these four instead — they produce a decision.
If services and public bidding, the answer is 02 or 03. If equipment sales, it's 04. This single question eliminates three of the five.
A DPWH shortlisting officer, a private consultant's project engineer, a buyer comparing GNSS receivers, or a graduate geodetic engineer looking for a job. Each points somewhere different.
02 and 03 are the strongest concepts, and both are worthless without this data. If it can't be assembled, say so now and the choice narrows honestly.
If the team will keep producing weekly regardless, 05 multiplies their output. If nobody will feed it, 05 becomes an empty magazine — the worst outcome on this page.
Open any concept and press Highlight placeholders in the bottom bar. Everything that lights up is invented content standing in for something real. This is the content request, made visible.
On the numbers: every statistic in these prototypes — 1,240 projects, 86k hectares, 17 regions — is invented to show the layout. None of it goes live unverified. That is exactly what the highlight toggle is for.
RASA owns all four and wants one site to maintain. That is the right call, and it is a design problem worth deciding deliberately rather than defaulting to tabs.
01 — Persistent tab switcher. Four tabs in the utility bar, always visible. Familiar, cheap, slightly bureaucratic.
02 — Map layers. Each company is a layer you toggle. Elegant, and it makes the group feel like one system rather than four brochures.
03 — Formal divisions. A group masthead with four numbered divisions. Reads as a serious holding company.
04 — Audience-first. The visitor picks what they need; the site routes to the right company invisibly. Best for conversion, hardest to build.
05 — Editorial desks. Four desks under one masthead. Strong if the site publishes; meaningless if it doesn't.