Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Hr Software topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County reviews NeoGov HR software after persistent application problems with current vendor
Summary
County administrator flagged continuing problems with the current hiring platform (Criterion), presented NeoGov as an option used across Virginia and asked the board for direction to obtain cost comparisons and answer contract/upgrade questions; no procurement decision was made.
County Administrator Matthew Smolnick told the board that King George has experienced repeated problems with its current online hiring system (Criterion), including missing application data, broken formatting and mobile incompatibility that have cost staff time and may cause the county to miss qualified candidates.
Smolnick said Human Resources staff had spent more than 100 hours troubleshooting the present system and asked whether the county should investigate alternatives. He presented NeoGov (now branded as a widely used onboarding and applicant-tracking suite across the Commonwealth) as a replacement option. The proposed NeoGov subscription quoted in the packet covered onboarding, applicant tracking and an enterprise license sized to the county’s full‑time headcount; staff explained additional modules (payroll/timekeeping, performance management) would be add‑ons.
Supervisors asked cost‑and‑contract questions: the length of NeoGov’s proposed contract (five years), annual price escalation, onboarding costs listed each year in the proposal, and why the vendor had priced the package for 285 licenses. Board members asked staff to obtain additional comparisons — specifically suggesting ADP and other payroll/HR vendors be included so the board could assess integration options with payroll and timekeeping. HR director Susan Courtney said the county currently pays about $6,900 a year for the existing Criterion service.
Smolnick said NeoGov is used by small and large jurisdictions across Virginia and could improve candidate access by saving applicants’ data for subsequent job postings; he asked permission to obtain detailed pricing and contract‑term answers from the vendor and to develop two or three options for board review. Several supervisors also asked staff to explore payroll/timekeeping modules to reduce paper processes.
No contract award or procurement decision was made; the board asked staff to return with comparative pricing, contract escalation clauses and clarifications about license counts and modules.
