Utah County approves Workday HRIS and Mercer implementation contracts after contract review and contingency

Utah County commissioners voted to approve master agreements with Workday for a comprehensive HRIS and a Master Services Agreement with Mercer to implement the system, after extended review of contract provisions and a temporary tabling of the item to secure final redlines. Speaker 2 moved the measure and Speaker 3 seconded; the motion passed with a voice vote noted as three to zero.

County staff told commissioners Mercer’s proposal met the RFP requirements at a lower price point than an alternate vendor and included a fixed-cost travel component that helped clarify total implementation costs. County counsel and purchasing staff described remaining edits in the Mercer draft — chiefly insurance limits tied to Governmental Immunity Act exposure and explicit language about responsibility and remedies in the event of a data breach — that were negotiated in the days leading up to today’s vote.

Cammy (Speaker 11), who summarized the procurement steps, said Mercer provided required services “at the price point which is less than the other vendor had proposed,” and staff had circulated scope-of-work documents to the commission late the prior evening. Robert (Speaker 8), handling legal review, told commissioners he had negotiated clarifications to require the vendor to meet county insurance thresholds and to accept certain data-breach responsibilities; he also proposed matching a 1.5% per annum payment cap in Mercer’s payment terms to align with Workday.

Commissioners repeatedly expressed a desire to see final, signed copies before voting; when Mercer indicated it had agreed to the edits, the commission pulled the item from the table, reviewed the final terms, and approved the dual agreements with the explicit condition that both contracts be signed by the vendors before the county proceeds. The motion’s wording required mutual vendor acceptance: if one agreement is not returned signed, the county will not proceed with the other.

The county’s staff said the approvals were intended to preserve a narrow implementation window and to avoid higher costs tied to delayed training and rollout schedules. Commissioner comments emphasized the need to protect the county from unanticipated liability and to maintain control over change orders and scope during the implementation.

The commission moved into closed session for portions of the contract negotiations earlier in the meeting and returned to open session before taking the final vote. The county did not disclose dollar totals of the Mercer contract in open session beyond staff statements that Mercer’s price was competitive and covered the RFP scope.