The Grand County Board of Commissioners voted to advertise for a county financial‑software procurement after presentations and a multi‑hour discussion about two vendor proposals and problems with the county’s existing system.

Staff told the board that the county has experienced limitations and support problems with its current financial software (identified in the record as “Harris”), citing audit issues and multiple required manual entries. Two vendors presented demonstrations to staff and commissioners: a vendor identified in the record as XSoft, which has a financials module introduced in 2023, and a second vendor presented as “Law” (recorded in materials variously as a vendor offering long‑standing financial software). Staff reported proposal totals for the two vendors’ initial conversion fees as about $194,920 (for the vendor referenced as “Law”/“Wow” in the record) and $194,220 (for XSoft).

County staff and several department users emphasized training, data conversion and vendor support as critical decision factors. Staff said the vendor listed as “Law/Wow” proposed 150 hours of training and more hands‑on on‑site transition support; XSoft’s financial module was newer and staff reported concerns about the vendor’s ability to answer technical questions during the demonstration. The county’s financial consultant (identified as LWG in the record) had earlier recommended moving away from Harris because of error‑prone processes that required multiple staff entries.

Commissioners discussed timing and implementation windows: staff said the preferred vendor would convert a limited number of clients per year (about five), with an implementation opening this October for a go‑live in November; otherwise conversion might be delayed to 2027. Staff recommended advertising the procurement and, if selected, financing and timing would be finalized in the formal contract and budget process. The board approved a motion to advertise for the vendor proposal as presented in the agenda materials; the motion carried on a voice vote.

Staff told the board the vendor fees would be spread across conversion and later annual maintenance payments, and that the ongoing maintenance amount would be budgeted in future IT/operations budgets. Staff also said the vendor would move historical data into the new system and that the new product retains searchable payroll and transaction history without the need to print and archive paper reports for every payroll.

The commissioners recorded no formal procurement award at the meeting; rather, they authorized advertising and next steps in the procurement process. Commissioners instructed IT and finance staff to finalize technical reviews and hardware requirements before implementation if a contract is awarded.