Klamath County staff recommend vendor B for new finance/HR (ERP) system; board directs staff to begin negotiations

Klamath County finance staff recommended selecting “vendor B” to replace the county’s finance and human resources enterprise resource planning (ERP) system and the board directed staff to begin negotiations, county officials said during the finance meeting on April 1, 2025.

County financial analyst Susan Alexander told the board the county issued an RFP several months earlier, received six applicants and narrowed the field to three finalists. Her summary showed vendor B consistently ranked first across reviewers and demonstrations, with vendor C second and vendor A — the county’s current vendor — third. Alexander said staff completed reference checks on all three finalists the week before the meeting.

The recommendation to pursue vendor B includes an 18-month implementation budget of $662,388 before negotiation, Alexander said. Vicky (finance staff) told the board she has budgeted funds toward an implementation: $601,000 set aside in the prior fiscal year, $500,000 budgeted in the current fiscal year and another $500,000 budgeted in the next fiscal year, with the expectation some internal service savings would help cover early subscription costs.

Alexander outlined problems with the county’s current software (vendor A), saying the county’s desktop-to-cloud migration carried existing inefficiencies forward, modules are not fully integrated, reporting requires significant cleanup, payroll workflows exceed the software’s built-in capabilities and security access is not granular enough. She said the vendor’s promised HR core and other modules are delayed and that delivered reporting tools are not end-user friendly, requiring technical training.

On costs and vendor comparison, staff said vendor C, while scalable and advanced, quoted a longer-term subscription and implementation costs that, combined, would be materially higher than vendor B’s proposal and therefore was removed from consideration. Alexander also described additional implementation-related costs staff recommend budgeting for, including travel/attendance at vendor conferences, backfill or overtime (about $50,000), and a contingency (about $25,000) — an estimated $100,000 in supportive costs in addition to vendor proposals.

Commissioners discussed the staffing impact and change management needs during an 18-month implementation. Finance staff said they would manage a formal change-management plan and that county employees who use the ERP extensively should expect a significant training period.

After the presentation, a board member said, “I think we should initiate negotiations with vendor B.” The board indicated consensus to direct staff to issue a notice of intent to award and begin negotiations, after which staff will return to the procurement steps required by county policy.

Staff emphasized the recommendation remains subject to negotiation and final procurement steps; no formal contract award was recorded at the April 1 meeting.

Ending

Finance staff said they will proceed with procurement steps, including issuing a notice of intent to award and starting contract negotiations with vendor B, and return to the board with negotiated terms. The suggested implementation budget and supportive costs remain subject to negotiation and final board approval before a contract is signed.