Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Communications Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission delays media‑monitoring contract amid RFP and vendor‑scope concerns

Utah County Commission · May 16, 2017
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission continued a proposed contract with Meltwater for countywide media monitoring to May 30 after the public information officer explained monitoring needs and commissioners raised questions about scope, RFP process and lower‑cost alternatives; motion to continue passed 3–0.

The commission discussed a staff proposal to contract a media‑monitoring service (Meltwater) to provide comprehensive tracking of TV, radio, print and social media coverage, particularly during emergencies. Eislyn Tolman Hill, public information officer for the Health Department, described a history of manual monitoring (including DVR recording of TV stations) and said specialized services can immediately alert staff when coverage appears and help assess sentiment and reach.

Commissioners asked why an RFP was not used, whether a lower‑cost or local vendor (Nuvi was mentioned) could meet needs, and whether the county could perform acceptable monitoring with available free tools. Commissioner comments emphasized a preference for an RFP for services affecting multiple county departments and raised concerns about centralizing branding and messaging across department web pages. The PIO said Meltwater includes traditional media (TV and radio) and that staff had tried multiple alternatives but needed comprehensive coverage, especially in emergency situations.

Given outstanding questions about scope, procurement process and cost comparisons, the commission voted to continue the item to May 30 for more detailed review and potential RFP consideration; the motion passed 3–0.

What’s next: Staff will return with further procurement details, cost comparisons (including local vendors referenced), and answers to commissioners’ RFP/process questions before the May 30 meeting.