RFP 2026-0300-0290.pdf

STATE OF ALASKA

REQUEST FOR

PROPOSALS

OFFERORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THIS FORM.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF YOU RECEIVED THIS SOLICITATION FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA’S

“ONLINE PUBLIC NOTICE” WEB SITE, YOU MUST REGISTER WITH THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER

LISTED IN THIS DOCUMENT TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS. FAILURE

TO CONTACT THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER MAY RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

ISSUED BY:

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

CRIMINAL DIVISION

PRIMARY CONTACT:

JEDEDIAH SMITH

PROCUREMENT OFFICER

JED.SMITH@ALASKA.GOV

(907) 465-4337

BIDIRECTIONAL CRIMINAL CASE INTAKE AND

DISPOSITION (CCID) PORTAL

RFP 2026-0300-0290

ISSUED JUNE 29TH, 2026

THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, CRIMINAL DIVISION (“THE DIVISION”), SEEKS

PROPOSALS FROM QUALIFIED VENDORS FOR THE DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, HOSTING, AND

SUPPORT OF A SECURE, WEB-BASED, BIDIRECTIONAL CRIMINAL CASE INTAKE AND

DISPOSITION (CCID) PORTAL.

STATE OF ALASKA – REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RFP 2026-0300-0290

BIDIRECTIONAL CRIMINAL CASE INTAKE & DISPOSITION PORTAL

2 Rev. 8/24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION & INSTRUCTIONS

SEC. 1.01 PURPOSE OF THE RFP

SEC. 1.02 BUDGET

SEC. 1.03 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

SEC. 1.04 PRIOR EXPERIENCE

SEC. 1.05 REQUIRED REVIEW

SEC. 1.06 QUESTIONS PRIOR TO DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

SEC. 1.07 RETURN INSTRUCTIONS

SEC. 1.08 ASSISTANCE TO OFFERORS WITH A DISABILITY

SEC. 1.09 AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSALS

SEC. 1.10 AMENDMENTS TO THE RFP

SEC. 1.11 RFP SCHEDULE

SEC. 1.12 ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

SEC. 1.13 NEWS RELEASES

SECTION 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SEC. 2.01 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SECTION 3. SCOPE OF WORK & CONTRACT INFORMATION

SEC. 3.01 PROCUREMENT OBJECTIVE

SEC. 3.02 SCOPE OF WORK

SEC. 3.03 CONTRACT TERM AND WORK SCHEDULE

SEC. 3.04 CONTRACT TYPE

SEC. 3.05 PROPOSED PAYMENT PROCEDURES

SEC. 3.06 CONTRACT PAYMENT

SEC. 3.07 CONTRACT PRICE ADJUSTMENTS

SEC. 3.08 SUBCONTRACTORS

SEC. 3.09 JOINT VENTURES

SEC. 3.10 CONTRACT PERSONNEL

SEC. 3.11 INSPECTION & MODIFICATION - REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNACCEPTABLE DELIVERABLES

SEC. 3.12 CONTRACT CHANGES - UNANTICIPATED AMENDMENTS

SEC. 3.13 NONDISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY

SEC. 3.14 INDEMNIFICATION

SEC. 3.15 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 3.16 TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT

SECTION 4. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

SEC. 4.01 RFP SUBMITTAL FORMS

SEC. 4.02 SPECIAL FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 4.03 FUNCTIONAL & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (SUBMITTAL FORM A)

SEC. 4.04 OFFEROR INFORMATION & CERTIFICATIONS (SUBMITTAL FORM B)

SEC. 4.05 EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS (SUBMITTAL FORM C)

SEC. 4.06 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT (SUBMITTAL FORM D)

SEC. 4.07 METHODOLOGY & MANAGEMENT PLAN USED FOR THE PROJECT (SUBMITTAL FORM E)

SEC. 4.08 SUBCONTRACTORS (SUBMITTAL FORM F)

SEC. 4.09 COST PROPOSAL (SUBMITTAL FORM G)

SEC. 4.10 MANDATORY OFFEROR DEMONSTRATION

SECTION 5. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND CONTRACTOR SELECTION

SEC. 5.01 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION PROCESS

SEC. 5.02 EVALUATION CRITERIA

SEC. 5.03 SCORING METHOD AND CALCULATION

SEC. 5.04 EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

SEC. 5.05 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT

SEC. 5.06 MANAGEMENT PLAN & METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE PROJECT

SEC. 5.07 CONTRACT COST (COST PROPOSAL)

SEC. 5.08 ALASKA OFFEROR PREFERENCE

SECTION 6. GENERAL PROCESS AND LEGAL INFORMATION

SEC. 6.01 INFORMAL DEBRIEFING

SEC. 6.02 ALASKA BUSINESS LICENSE AND OTHER REQUIRED LICENSES

SEC. 6.03 SITE INSPECTION

SEC. 6.04 CLARIFICATION OF OFFERS

SEC. 6.05 DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFERORS

SEC. 6.06 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

3 Rev. 8/24

SEC. 6.07 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

SEC. 6.08 FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE

SEC. 6.09 OFFEROR NOTIFICATION OF SELECTION

SEC. 6.10 PROTEST

SEC. 6.11 APPLICATION OF PREFERENCES

SEC. 6.12 ALASKA BIDDER PREFERENCE

SEC. 6.13 ALASKA VETERAN PREFERENCE

SEC. 6.14 ALASKA MILITARY SKILLS PROGRAM PREFERENCE

SEC. 6.15 STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS

SEC. 6.16 QUALIFIED OFFERORS

SEC. 6.17 PROPOSAL AS PART OF THE CONTRACT

SEC. 6.18 ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

SEC. 6.19 HUMAN TRAFFICKING

SEC. 6.20 RIGHT OF REJECTION

SEC. 6.21 STATE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION COSTS

SEC. 6.22 DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL CONTENTS

SEC. 6.23 ASSIGNMENT

SEC. 6.24 FORCE MAJEURE (IMPOSSIBILITY TO PERFORM)

SEC. 6.25 DISPUTES

SEC. 6.26 SEVERABILITY

SEC. 6.27 SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

SEC. 6.28 SOLICITATION ADVERTISING

SEC. 6.29 FEDERALLY IMPOSED TARIFFS

SECTION 7. ATTACHMENTS

SEC. 7.01 ATTACHMENTS

4 Rev. 8/24

INTRODUCTION & INSTRUCTIONS

SEC. 1.01 PURPOSE OF THE RFP

The Alaska Department of Law, Criminal Division (“the Division”), seeks proposals from qualified vendors for the design, implementation, hosting, and support of a secure, web-based, bidirectional Criminal Case Intake and Disposition (CCID) Portal.

The selected vendor must demonstrate substantial experience handling CJIS-regulated law-enforcement data in operational production environments.

SEC. 1.02 BUDGET

Approval or continuation of a contract resulting from this RFP is contingent upon legislative appropriation.

SEC. 1.03 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

Proposals must be received no later than 2:00 P.M. prevailing Alaska Standard Time on AUGUST 14TH, 2026 as indicated by postmark or email timestamp and late proposals will not be considered.

SEC. 1.04 PRIOR EXPERIENCE

Respondents must, at a minimum:

• Have a demonstrated history of working directly with law enforcement or criminal justice agencies within the last two years;

• Vendor must have designed, implemented, or operated a system that supports law enforcement case referral, intake, or prosecutorial handoff workflows, not merely internal case management or records storage.

• Vendor must offer a browser-based solution proven to function in low-bandwidth or limited-connectivity environments, including rural or remote jurisdictions;

• Vendor must provide exposed, documented, vendor-supported APIs used in active customer deployments to support bidirectional integration with external systems;

• Vendor must host all criminal justice data within the United States and provide U.S.-based technical support personnel familiar with CJIS requirements.

• Offer long-term maintenance, support, and documentation.

An offeror's failure to meet these minimum prior experience requirements will cause their proposal to be considered non-responsive and rejected.

SEC. 1.05 REQUIRED REVIEW

Offerors should carefully review this solicitation for defects and questionable or objectionable material.

Comments concerning defects and questionable or objectionable material should be made in writing and received by the procurement officer at least ten days before the deadline for receipt of proposals. This will allow time for the issuance of any necessary amendments. It will also help prevent the opening of a defective proposal and exposure of offeror's proposals upon which award could not be made.

5 Rev. 8/24

SEC. 1.06 QUESTIONS PRIOR TO DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF

PROPOSALS

All questions must be in writing and directed to the procurement officer. The interested party must confirm telephone conversations in writing.

Two types of questions generally arise. One may be answered by directing the questioner to a specific section of the RFP. These questions may be answered over the telephone. Other questions may be more complex and may require a written amendment to the RFP. The procurement officer will make that decision.

PROCUREMENT OFFICER: JEDEDIAH SMITH – PHONE: 907-465-4337 - EMAIL ADDRESS:

JED.SMITH@ALASKA.GOV

SEC. 1.07 RETURN INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals must be submitted by email. The Submittal Form documents must be emailed to 03PROCUREMENT@ALASKA.GOV as separate, clearly labeled attachments, such as “Vendor A – Technical Proposal” and “Vendor A – Cost Proposal” (Vendor A is the name of the offeror). The email must contain the RFP number in the subject line.

The maximum size of a single email (including all text and attachments) that can be received by the state is 20mb (megabytes). If the email containing the proposal exceeds this size, the proposal must be sent in multiple emails that are each less than 20 megabytes, and each email must comply with the requirements described above.

Please return Submittal Form A and Submittal Form G in the same “excel” format they are found in.

Submittal Forms B – F may be converted to a PDF and submitted in that format.

Please note that email transmission is not instantaneous. Similar to sending a hard copy proposal, if you are emailing your proposal, the state recommends sending it with enough time to ensure the email is delivered by the deadline for receipt of proposals.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to contact the issuing agency at 907-465-4337 to confirm that the proposal has been received. The state is not responsible for unreadable, corrupt, or missing attachments.

SEC. 1.08 ASSISTANCE TO OFFERORS WITH A DISABILITY

Offerors with a disability may receive accommodation regarding the means of communicating this RFP or participating in the procurement process. For more information, contact the procurement officer no later than ten days prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals.

SEC. 1.09 AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSALS

Amendments to or withdrawals of proposals will only be allowed if acceptable requests are received prior to the deadline that is set for receipt of proposals. No amendments or withdrawals will be accepted after the deadline unless they are in response to the state's request in accordance with 2 AAC 12.290.

SEC. 1.10 AMENDMENTS TO THE RFP

If an amendment is issued before the deadline for receipt of proposals, the amendment will be posted on the State of Alaska Online Public Notice (OPN) website. The link to the posting of the amendment will

6 Rev. 8/24 be provided to all who were notified of the RFP and to those who have registered with the procurement officer after receiving the RFP from the OPN.

After receipt of proposals, if there is a need for any substantial clarification or material change in the RFP, an amendment will be issued. The amendment will incorporate the clarification or change, and a new date and time established for new or amended proposals. Evaluations may be adjusted as a result of receiving new or amended proposals.

SEC. 1.11 RFP SCHEDULE

RFP schedule set out herein represents the state’s best estimate of the schedule that will be followed. If a component of this schedule, such as the deadline for receipt of proposals, is delayed, the rest of the schedule may be shifted accordingly. All times are Alaska Standard Time.

ACTIVITY TIME DATE

Issue Date / RFP Released June 29, 2026 Deadline for Receipt of Proposals / Proposal Due Date 2:00 pm August 14, 2026 Product Demonstrations August 17 – August 28, 2026 Proposal Evaluations Complete September 7, 2026 Notice of Intent to Award September 17, 2026 Contract Issued October 1, 2026

This RFP does not, by itself, obligate the state. The state's obligation will commence when the contract is approved by the Attorney General of the Department of Law, or the Attorney General's designee. Upon written notice to the contractor, the state may set a different starting date for the contract. The state will not be responsible for any work done by the contractor, even work done in good faith, if it occurs prior to the contract start date set by the state.

SEC. 1.12 ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

Offerors may only submit one proposal for evaluation. In accordance with 2 AAC 12.830 alternate proposals (proposals that offer something different than what is asked for) will be rejected.

SEC. 1.13 NEWS RELEASES

News releases related to this RFP will not be made without prior approval of the project director.

7 Rev. 8/24

SECTION 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SEC. 2.01 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Division is responsible for prosecuting all violations of Alaska state criminal law and operates under the supervision of the Alaska Attorney General. The Division maintains offices in thirteen (13) communities statewide, serving urban centers and highly remote locations with limited infrastructure (e.g.

bandwidth).

Each year, the Division receives approximately 21,000 criminal case referrals from approximately forty

(40) Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) across Alaska. The Division generally does not initiate investigations; instead, prosecutions are initiated based on referrals submitted by LEA partners.

A. Division Structure

The Division operates under the authority of the Alaska Attorney General through the Criminal Division’s Central Office (CDCO) and is responsible for most criminal prosecutions in the state. Unlike many other states, Alaska does not have county-based prosecutors’ offices. Only two local jurisdictions—Anchorage and Juneau—maintain municipal prosecutors’ offices with significant misdemeanor caseloads. While the federal government maintains a U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alaska, it handles only a limited portion of the overall prosecutions statewide.

The Division employs approximately 288 personnel, including 147 attorneys, 53 paralegals, and 88 support staff across 13 communities. Prosecutorial responsibilities are geographically distributed across Alaska’s four judicial districts, each housing multiple district attorney offices. Together, the Division has 16 offices, including CDCO, the Office of Special Prosecutions (OSP) and the Office of Criminal Appeals, as described below and reflected in the organizational charts described below.

8 Rev. 8/24

• CDCO. Please see Figure 1 for a description of CDCO’s structure.

Figure 1:

9 Rev. 8/24

• First Judicial District: Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka. Please see Figure 2 for a description of the First Judicial District’s structure.

Figure 2:

10 Rev. 8/24

• Second Judicial District: Nome, Kotzebue, and Utqiagvik. Please see Figure 3 for a description of the Second Judicial District’s structure.

Figure 3:

11 Rev. 8/24

• Third Judicial District: Anchorage (largest office), Palmer, Kenai, Kodiak, and Dillingham.

Please see Figure 4 for a description of the Third Judicial District’s structure.1

Figure 4:

1 The Third Judicial District is the largest coverage area for the Division and includes several offices.

12 Rev. 8/24

13 Rev. 8/24

14 Rev. 8/24

15 Rev. 8/24

• Fourth Judicial District: Fairbanks and Bethel. Please see Figure 5 for a description of the Fourth Judicial District’s structure.

Figure 5:

16 Rev. 8/24

17 Rev. 8/24

Additionally, the Division includes two statewide prosecutorial units:

• OSP: handles complex and sensitive prosecutions across the state, including conflict cases from other offices, officer-involved shooting investigations, and cold case homicide prosecutions.

Please see Figure 6 for a description of the OSP structure.

Figure 6:

18 Rev. 8/24

• Office of Criminal Appeals: manages post-conviction litigation, including appeals and habeas corpus proceedings. Please see Figure 7 for a description of the Office of Criminal Appeals’ structure.

Figure 7:

The Division also houses Alaska’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU). The MFCU is staffed with attorneys, analysts, and investigators who are responsible for investigating and prosecuting fraud committed against the Medicaid program as well as abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults. As shown in the chart for OSP, the MFCU is housed within OSP.

Each District Attorney’s Office is staffed with attorneys, law office assistants, investigators, and paralegals, many of whom serve Alaska’s rural communities where geographic isolation and limited law enforcement resources create unique prosecutorial challenges. Generally, the Division receives prosecution referrals from a range of law enforcement agencies, including state, federal, and municipal entities. Those agencies and the process by which the Division receives case referrals is discussed more fully below.

B. Average Case Referrals Per Year

Together the Division receives roughly 21,000 referrals to prosecute a year – 6,000 felonies and 15,000 misdemeanors. On average, there are roughly 26,000 active prosecutions occurring across the state. Once referred, Division employees open the case in our CMS, and a Division prosecutor within the region of the referring LEA screens the case (ex. a Fairbanks prosecutor is typically responsible for the review of cases investigated and referred by the Fairbanks Police Department). Screening is defined as evaluating the referral to decide whether to accept the case for prosecution (proceed with the prosecution), 19 Rev. 8/24 decline/dismiss the case, or amend the charges referred. A case may be referred by an agency before charges are filed with the court or after.

C. Law Enforcement Agency Partners

The Criminal Division receives referrals to prosecute from approximately 40 law enforcement agencies (LEA) statewide. The diversity and number of referring agencies underscore the importance of robust intake, evidence management, and inter-agency communication capabilities for a referral system.

LEAs across the state utilize a range of systems to manage their records and digital evidence, as illustrated in the charts below. The two largest LEAs in Alaska—the Alaska State Troopers (AST) and the Anchorage Police Department (APD)—use Niche and Hexagon, respectively, for their records management systems (RMS), and both rely on Axon for their digital evidence management systems (DEMS). At present, there are no direct system integrations between LEAs and the Criminal Division for either RMS or DEMS.

Figure 8 and 9 (included below) details the RMS and DEMS in use by LEAs, respectively.

Figure 8:

20 Rev. 8/24

Figure 9:

In general, the listed LEAs refer cases to the corresponding office as detailed in the chart below. However, there are situations where another office may prosecute a case from an originating agency from another jurisdiction. For example, Palmer may prosecute cases that are referred by APD. In addition, OSP takes cases from across the state.

Office Referring Law Enforcement Agency2

All Offices Department of Corrections Department of Public Safety Division of Juvenile Justice

Anchorage Anchorage Police Department Anchorage Airport Police and Fire Dillingham Police Department Sand Point Police Department Unalaska Police Department King Cove Police Department University of Alaska Anchorage

Bethel Bethel Police Department

Fairbanks Fairbanks Police Department Fairbanks Airport and Fire Police Department North Pole Police Department North Slope Police Department University of Alaska Fairbanks

2 This is not an exhaustive list of all LEA in Alaska. It also does not break down the several AST detachments.

21 Rev. 8/24

Juneau Haines Police Department Hoonah Police Department Juneau Police Department Petersburg Police Department Skagway Police Department Yakutat Police Department

Kenai Homer Police Department Kenai Police Department Seward Police Department Soldotna Police Department

Ketchikan Craig Police Department Ketchikan Police Department Metlakatla Police Department

Kodiak Kodiak Police Department

Kotzebue Kotzebue Police Department

Nome Nome Police Department

Palmer Cordova Police Department Palmer Police Department Valdez Police Department Wasilla Police Department

Sitka Sitka Police Department Wrangell Police Department

OSP • All Agencies

D. Method of Referring Cases

Case referrals are submitted using the Criminal Case Intake and Disposition (CCID) form, a Division-owned instrument relied upon by LEAs to transmit c Case referrals are submitted using the Criminal Case Intake and Disposition (CCID) form, a Division-owned instrument relied upon by LEAs to transmit case information and track referrals between LEAs, the Division, municipal prosecutors’ offices that receive case referrals directly from LEAs, and the Alaska Court System.

Each CCID generates a unique Arrest Tracking Number (ATN) that follows the case through its lifecycle.

The CCID Portal must generate and assign a unique ATN for each case referral submitted through the system.

The ATN is:

• Randomly generated using a defined algorithm;

22 Rev. 8/24

• Non-sequential;

• Validated by a check digit or equivalent error-detection mechanism; and

• Guaranteed never to repeat across all cases submitted through the system.

The ATN is the single, unifying identifier used to track a criminal case across law enforcement agencies, the Alaska Court System, Municipal Prosecutors’ offices, and the Division. No other identifier reliably persists across criminal justice entities.

The CCID captures, at a minimum:

• Defendant identifying information (e.g. date of birth, social security number, driver’s license number, Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN) identification, and first and last name)

• Referred criminal charges

• Referring agency

• Referring officer’s name

• Date of offense

• A check box to identify whether the case is a case involving domestic violence (DV)

• The location of the offense

• Date of arrest/citation

• Victim information (e.g. first and last name, date of birth, social security number, mailing address, phone number, primary language spoken, and a designated alternative point of contact for the victim)

• LEA report numbers

• Attachments (e.g., police reports, charging documents, digital evidence)

Upon receipt, Division staff manually create the case in the Division’s case management system (Prosecutor by Karpel (PbK)) and later manually return disposition information to the referring LEA. This process is data-intensive, time-consuming, and vulnerable to delay and human error.

The Division requires a system that integrates with the Division’s existing case management system, PbK, and that includes exposed, vendor-supported application programming interfaces (APIs) enabling secure, bidirectional integration with law enforcement agency (LEA) systems.

Municipal prosecutors’ offices rely on the ATN to track and reference cases referred by LEAs in the same manner as the Division. While municipal prosecutors may not require system-to-system integration with the CCID Portal, they must be able to securely access the portal to view, reference, and track ATN-associated case information for cases within their jurisdiction, case information and track referrals between LEAs, the Division, municipal prosecutors’ offices that receive case referrals directly from LEAs, and the Alaska Court System.

23 Rev. 8/24

E. How cases are referred: charged/direct filed vs. referral

LEAs may refer cases for prosecution in two ways: by directly filing the case with the Alaska Court System or by submitting it as a case for review. A case submitted for review has not yet been charged.

When a case is directly filed, it is formally charged and assigned a court case number by the Alaska Court System.

In either instance, a prosecutor within the office to which the case is referred is responsible for screening the case to determine whether prosecution is appropriate. As part of this screening process, the prosecutor may choose to add, amend, or decline charges. If the prosecutor decides to decline prosecution, the matter is closed. For direct-filed cases, a prosecutor’s decision to decline the case for prosecution will result in dismissal of the court case. Figure 10 illustrates the referral process to the Division and the prosecutor’s role in handling the referral.

Figure 10:

F. Steps taken by the Division upon receipt of referral

In general, the Division follows these steps when a case is referred to it for prosecution.

24 Rev. 8/24

Open the case in CMS (LOA): using the CCID, list the referred charges; create a case under the defendant’s profile, including update the defendant’s profile using the Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN); add the referred LEA, referred law enforcement officer (LEO), ATN, date of offense, witness and victim information, LEA number, lab report, and upload any documents associated with the case; and assign a prosecutor, paralegal and LOA.

Victim contact (paralegal): the assigned paralegal contacts the victim(s) and logs that contact into the CMS.

Case is screened (prosecutor): the assigned prosecutor screens the case by determining whether to proceed with the referred charges, modify the charges, or decline the case for prosecution;

identifies witnesses for grand jury (if necessary) and trial; requests any follow-up; drafts charging documents; drafts an offer; and gives direction to the assigned paralegal and LOA about necessary tasks.

If needed, file charging documents (LOA): after the prosecutor drafts additional charging documents, the LOA may be responsible for filing those documents with the Court System.

After these steps, the case may progress through the criminal justice system.

• Post-screening

If the assigned prosecutor elects to continue with the prosecution of the case, the case progresses through the courts. This process may include the generation, receipt and filing of court documents; negotiations between the parties; issuing subpoenas for grand jury, evidentiary hearings and trial; the receipt and disclosure of evidence from the CMS and the Division’s DEMS environments; the tracking of those disclosures; attending court hearings and maintaining clear notes from those hearings; and contact and maintain a record of victim and witness contacts. All activities are logged, generated, or recorded in the Division’s CMS.

• Disposition

If a prosecutor screens a case out (elects not to proceed with the referred case), resolves the case prior to trial, or proceeds to trial, a record of those events is maintained in the CMS including case disposition details (e.g. the reason for the action taken, the sentence imposed). The disposition records are manually entered on the CCID form which is then manually distributed back to the referring LEA.

An appeal may follow any case charged. Appellate cases are also tracked and opened in the CMS, following an abbreviated process and linked with the original trial case.

LEAs depend on communication from the Division (typically via the CCID) for information on how to process cases in their system. For example, the prosecutor is responsible for alerting the LEA whether it must retain evidence associated with the referral. The current manual, time intensive and imperfect distribution of the CCID creates significant challenges for our LEA partners in the handling and management of evidence. The CCID is also a tool that helps LEAs understand decisions made in cases – whether a case is declined and the reason behind the declination – communication that is essential for their responsivity to the community, training, and whether there is a need to continue to dedicate resources to the case. Any future system must provide disposition details to the referring LEA in near real-time.

G. Current Business and Technical Landscape

25 Rev. 8/24

The Division currently utilizes PbK as its CMS. The system was fully implemented by the Division by 2015. It is used across the Division to initiate, store, maintain, and create shared access to prosecutorial case records and related documents.

The capabilities below represent the Division’s core business functions that are currently supported by a multitude of tools and applications in the current state, including primarily our CMS and DEMS. These capabilities capture the major business functions currently carried out by the Division to meet the Agency’s stated goals and objectives. These business capabilities include:

i. Case Initiation Processing

The ability for the Division to receive incoming case files and perform all necessary functions to determine what cases to prosecute, and conduct all necessary activities and actions to prepare accepted cases for further processing (e.g. generating charging documents, conducting arraignments, preparing discovery etc.).

ii. Case Flow Processing

The ability to process cases the Division has deemed eligible for prosecution. This includes the initiation, routing, monitoring, and overall management of all activities and actions necessary to progress a prosecutorial case from initial filing to disposition (and post-disposition processing if necessary).

iii. Manage Pre-Trial Events

The ability for the Division to initiate, conduct, and manage all pre-trial activities and actions necessary to ensure proper exchange of information (i.e. discovery) between the prosecutor and the defense, determine and conduct the best course of prosecutorial action (e.g. plea offers, motion filing, etc.) based on the alleged crimes and charges, and prepare cases for hearing, if appropriate.

iv. Evidence Management

The ability for the Division to manage evidence, including through audit and tracking logs and disclosure of evidence. Evidence management should enable Division employees to (at a glance) identify what has been disclosed, when it was disclosed and to whom, and restrict what should be disclosed. Evidence management also requires that the CMS maintain a Brady alert system.

v. Trial Processing

The ability to process a case through to trial, including by developing exhibits, maintaining clear notes, tracking witness availability, and issuing subpoenas and other relevant pleadings.

vi. Special Case Management

The ability for the Division to manage cases other “special” case types, such as appeals, petitions to revoke probation, co-defendant cases, investigations, and conflict cases. Conflict cases may be a case that requires restricting access to select Division employees.

vii. Post-Disposition Processing

The ability for Division employees to dispose of cases, record the reason for the disposition, enter disposition/sentencing details, share that information with the referring LEA, and take other post-disposition action, including schedule restitution hearings.

viii. Reporting and Analytics

26 Rev. 8/24

Produce Accurate and Actionable Reports: Generate real-time and historical reports on case metrics, including case intake, charging decisions, case outcomes, and timelines. Track prosecutorial activity by office, jurisdiction, attorney, or case type. Support customized reporting based on user-defined criteria such as date ranges, case severity, charges filed, dismissals, resolutions, and case aging.

Support Operational Oversight and Supervision: Provide supervisors with tools to monitor attorney and staff workloads, performance, and case progression. Allow team leads to generate workload distribution reports and identify potential case backlogs or areas requiring reallocation of resources. Enable individual users to track their own caseloads, deadlines, and tasks.

Inform Legislative, Budgetary, and Policy Decisions: Enable the Division to produce reports responsive to legislative and executive branch information requests. Support data transparency and accountability when presenting metrics to the Alaska Legislature, the Office of the Governor, or the public. Provide insights into trends in crime, prosecution rates, and resource allocation to inform funding requests and statutory changes.

Enable Data-Driven Decision-Making: Include dashboards and visualizations for quick reference to key metrics. Offer tools for trend analysis, forecasting, and comparative analysis between judicial districts or time periods. Allow for export of data to Excel, PDF, or other formats for offline analysis or sharing.

Maintain Data Security and Role-Based Access: Ensure access to reports and analytics tools is permission-based, with restrictions aligned to user roles and responsibilities. Safeguard sensitive case data while still enabling aggregate data analysis across the Division.

Support Ad Hoc and Scheduled Reporting: Allow users to generate both on-demand (ad hoc) and recurring (scheduled) reports. Enable automation for routine reporting tasks, including monthly, quarterly, and annual performance summaries.

The business needs identified above are supported primarily by our technical resources, including our CMS and DEMS.

Figure 12 below is a high-level illustration of our current technical landscape and those processes that are done manually by a Division employee or a criminal justice partner, and those that are done through an electronic data share.

27 Rev. 8/24

H. Current Technical Resources

The Division’s line of business technical resources includes the following positions:

i. Department Technology Officer 2

The Department Technology Officer (DTO) for the Department of Law serves as the senior IT liaison and strategic advisor responsible for aligning the Department’s business and operational needs with technology solutions. The DTO collaborates closely with Department leadership and the Office of Information Technology (OIT) to ensure that IT services and systems effectively support the Department’s legal, administrative, and case management functions. The DTO provides oversight of the Department’s technology initiatives, ensures compliance with State of Alaska enterprise policies and security standards, and represents the Department’s interests in statewide IT governance, architectural review, and enterprise planning processes. This position is a shared resource within the Department of Law and supports both Divisions in their functioning.

i. Systems Programmer 3

The Systems Programmer is responsible for designing, configuring, installing, modifying, maintaining, and evaluating both commercial and internally developed software that supports the Division’s enterprise-

28 Rev. 8/24 level servers and case management systems. This position ensures secure, reliable access to data and network resources essential to the Division’s legal operations. The Systems Programmer provides technical expertise and consultation to legal staff and internal stakeholders, develops and implements system solutions tailored to the Department’s needs, and supports integration with State of Alaska enterprise infrastructure. This is a Division position dedicated to our systems.

ii. Department of Law Help Desk

The Department of Law employs four Microcomputer/Network Specialists who work under the direction of the Department Technology Officer (DTO) to support the Department’s IT infrastructure and user needs across all offices. These positions are responsible for administering the Department’s networks and providing hands-on technical support to attorneys, staff, and paralegals. Their work includes network planning, design, implementation, modification, and security to ensure reliable and secure access to systems and data critical to the Department’s operations. They also manage hardware and software deployment, troubleshoot technical issues, and assist with aligning Department systems with statewide IT standards in coordination with the Office of Information Technology (OIT).

iii. Research Analyst

The Division employs one Research Analyst who performs complex and technical research and analytical work in support of the Division’s mission. This position is responsible for developing, maintaining, and interpreting statistical information related to criminal case activity statewide. The Research Analyst gathers data from internal systems and external agencies, prepares reports for Division leadership, and supports legislative and budgetary requests with accurate and timely analysis. The position plays a critical role in identifying trends, informing policy decisions, and supporting data-driven resource allocation within the Criminal Division.

iv. CMS Coordinator

The Case Management Coordinator serves as the primary point of contact for coordinating, maintaining, and supporting the Division’s case management system and related workflows. This position ensures the integrity, usability, and functionality of the case management platform to support the operational and legal needs of attorneys, paralegals, and administrative staff across all Division offices.

Key responsibilities include overseeing user access and role configurations, coordinating user training, monitoring data quality, developing internal user guides, and working closely with internal stakeholders to troubleshoot issues, implement enhancements, and support system upgrades. The Case Management Coordinator plays a critical role in ensuring that the system supports consistent, timely, and accurate case handling, discovery, and reporting across the Division. The position may also assist with data analysis and contribute to the development of performance metrics and reporting tools.

v. State of Alaska Office of Information Technology

The State of Alaska’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) supports the Department of Law by providing centralized, enterprise-level IT services and governance, including the maintenance of core infrastructure such as cloud and data service centers, identity and access management, and security policy enforcement and compliance. The Department’s DTO serves as a liaison between OIT and the Department.

29 Rev. 8/24

SECTION 3. SCOPE OF WORK & CONTRACT INFORMATION

SEC. 3.01 PROCUREMENT OBJECTIVE

The Division seeks to implement a modern, secure, and scalable CCID Portal to increase operational efficiency in the exchange of case information between LEAs and the Division.

Increased efficiency requires reducing duplicative effort, minimizing the risk of human error, and eliminating unnecessary manual data entry and manual transmission of case information. The CCID Portal is intended to serve as the primary, standardized mechanism for case referral and disposition communication between LEAs and the Division.

The key functional objectives of the CCID Portal are as follows:

A. Streamline Case Referral, Tracking, and Disposition Communication

Currently, cases are referred to the Division using the CCID form and transmitted through multiple platforms, including email, SharePoint, digital evidence systems, and physical delivery. Upon receipt, Division staff manually enter referral information into the Division’s case management system and later manually notify the referring LEA of case disposition.

The Division seeks a CCID Portal that centralizes and standardizes case referral submission and disposition reporting, reducing lag time, minimizing manual handling, and improving the accuracy and consistency of case information exchanged between agencies.

B. Automate Intake and Disposition Workflows and Notifications

Many steps in the current referral process require repetitive manual data entry and manual communication between the Division and LEAs. The CCID Portal should automate intake workflows and disposition notifications to ensure timely, consistent, and auditable communication without reliance on manual follow-up. To achieve this objective, an ideal system must integrate with the Division’s CMS to automate case opening and automate from data within the CMS communication of disposition details to the referring

LEA.

C. Support Direct Integration with External Law Enforcement Systems

A core objective of the CCID Portal is to reduce duplicative work across agencies. Law enforcement agencies often must enter the same case information into multiple systems, while the Division performs similar tasks upon receipt. The CCID Portal must support direct, API-based integration with LEA systems to reduce redundant data entry, improve data accuracy, and support timely prosecution decisions.

D. Improve Interagency Communication and Coordination

LEAs rely on timely updates from the Division regarding case status, screening decisions, disposition outcomes, and evidence retention guidance. Delays or incomplete communication strain both prosecutorial and law enforcement resources and may create operational or legal risk. The CCID Portal must enhance interagency collaboration by providing structured, timely, and reliable bidirectional communication between the Division and LEAs throughout the lifecycle of a referred case.

30 Rev. 8/24

E. Enable Secure Access and Role-Based Permissions

The CCID Portal must include role-based access controls to ensure that users can access only the information appropriate to their role, agency, and authorization level. Access controls must support CJIS compliance and protect sensitive criminal justice information while allowing efficient operational use.

F. Promote Standardization of Case Referral Practices Across Agencies

LEAs across Alaska vary in size, resources, and internal workflows. The CCID Portal should promote standardized referral data elements, charge selection, and documentation practices, improving consistency across agencies and reducing training burdens for both LEAs and the Division.

G. Reduce Duplicate Data Entry Through Centralized Intake

The CCID Portal should function as a single, authoritative intake point for case referral information, reducing the need for duplicative entry of case data, attachments, and identifiers across multiple platforms and systems.

H. Provide Referral and Disposition Reporting and Auditability

The CCID Portal must support reporting and audit functionality related to case referrals and dispositions, including referral volumes, processing timelines, disposition outcomes, and agency-level metrics. These capabilities are essential to support oversight, accountability, and responses to legislative or executive inquiries.

I. Support Operational Visibility for Participating Agencies

The CCID Portal should provide LEAs and the Division with appropriate visibility into the status of referred cases, including confirmation of receipt, screening outcomes, and final disposition, without exposing internal prosecutorial deliberations or confidential materials.

J. Improve Communication with Non-LEA Case Parties

In addition to keeping law enforcement agency partners informed of case progress, the Division has an obligation to keep victims informed. Victims have constitutional and statutory rights to receive timely information about the status of their cases.

Currently, the Division communicates with victims through manual methods—such as phone calls, emails, and written correspondence—as well as through the automated VINELink system, which provides updates regarding hearings in charged cases.

The Division seeks a system that would allow victims to securely access limited information about the status of a referred case, including whether the case has been accepted for prosecution and basic assignment details, such as the assigned office, paralegal, and prosecutor. Access must be strictly controlled so that users may view only authorized, case-specific information.

In summary, the Division seeks a modern, CJIS-compliant, bidirectional CCID portal that serves as the primary mechanism for communication and data exchange between LEAs and the Criminal Division, replacing paper-based and ad hoc electronic workflows.

The portal must:

31 Rev. 8/24

• Enable law enforcement to submit case referrals electronically and incorporate the algorithm currently used;

• Integrate programmatically with the Division’s existing CMS;

• While municipal prosecutors may not require system-to-system integration with the CCID Portal, they must be able to securely access the portal to view, reference, and track ATN-associated case information for cases within their jurisdiction.

• Provide automated feedback from the Division back to LEAs regarding:

1. Case status

2. Assignment (e.g. prosecutor and more staff assignments)

3. Disposition (e.g. whether the case was accepted for prosecution, declined for prosecution, and any sentencing details)

4. Evidence retention guidance

• Be built to possess the capacity for integration by our LEA partners with their CMS’s;

• Permit victim(s) access to information about the progress of their case, including case assignment details; and

• Possess auditing and tracking tools.

SEC. 3.02 SCOPE OF WORK

A. Portal Access and Availability

The CCID Portal must:

• Be web-browser accessible (no proprietary client software required);

• Function reliably in low-bandwidth and low-connectivity environments, including rural Alaska communities;

• Support role-based access controls for LEA users, Division users, Municipality prosecutors and victims.

• Be available 24/7, subject to scheduled maintenance.

The system must treat the ATN as immutable once generated. The portal must support correction and amendment of CCID data elements associated with an ATN through a versioned update process, preserving prior values, maintaining full audit history, and clearly indicating the current authoritative data to all authorized users.

The solution must support offline issuance of ATN through a secure pre-allocation mechanism. The system shall allow controlled issuance of pre-generated, non-repeating ATNs to authorized agencies or dispatch centers for use during connectivity outages, with full reconciliation, validation, and audit logging upon restoration of connectivity.

B. Law Enforcement Referral Functionality

The portal must allow authorized LEA users to submit case referrals containing, at a minimum:

32 Rev. 8/24

Case and Tracking Information

• Arrest Tracking Number (ATN) (system-generated following an algorithm that never repeats and incorporates the existing numbering system)

• Date(s) of offense

• Referring LEA

• Primary officer

• LEA report number(s) (must have the capacity to incorporate multiple report numbers)

Defendant Information

• Full legal name

• Date of birth

• Social Security number

• Physical address

• Phone number

• Driver’s license number

• APSIN number (if available)

Victim Information

• Full name

• Date of birth

• Social Security number

• Address

• Phone number

• Driver’s license number

• APSIN number (if available)

• Preferred spoken language

• Alternative point of contact/victim designated representative

Charges

• Pre-populated, standardized list of Alaska criminal charges, including class and level of offense

• Statute numbers and charge descriptions

• Ability to select multiple charges per referral

• Charge tracking number (CTN)

Attachments

The system must provide for the ability to submit attachments with a case referral, including police reports, charging documents, digital evidence references or links, and other supporting materials.

C. Bidirectional Integration Requirements

Integration with Division Case Management System

The portal must include exposed, documented APIs that allow it to be securely tethered to the Division’s existing case management system.

Integration must support, at a minimum:

• Inbound transmission of CCID referral data

• Preservation of the ATN as a persistent identifier

• Automated case creation or population workflows (as configured by the Division)

Outbound Communication to Law Enforcement Agencies

33 Rev. 8/24

The portal must be capable of reporting back to the referring LEA, through automated or near-real-time updates:

• Case screening status (e.g., accepted, declined, pending)

• Assigned prosecuting office and attorney (if applicable)

• Case disposition and resolution details

• Evidence retention and disposal guidance following case resolution

D. Scalability and Extensibility

The solution must:

• Be scalable to support additional LEAs, users, and data volume without re-architecture;

• Support external LEA system integrations through exposed APIs, enabling LEAs to connect RMS or other internal systems directly to the portal;

• Allow the Division to onboard additional agencies incrementally.

I. PHASED IMPLEMENTATION & DEPLOYMENT

The CCID Portal is a mission-critical, statewide system that must be implemented in a controlled, low-risk manner. Vendors shall propose a phased deployment strategy that minimizes operational disruption, ensures system reliability, and allows for iterative refinement based on real-world use.

A. Phased Deployment Plan

Vendors must provide a detailed deployment plan that includes:

• Methodology for selecting pilot agencies and offices

• Proposed sequencing for onboarding additional agencies and offices

• Clearly defined criteria and performance benchmarks required to advance between deployment phases

• Consideration of agency size, technical maturity, and geographic constraints (including rural and low-bandwidth environments)

B. Minimum Viable Product (MVP) Requirements

The initial system release must deliver a functional MVP that includes, at a minimum:

• Core case intake functionality

• Automated Arrest Tracking Number (ATN) generation

• Basic referral submission capabilities

Advanced functionality (e.g., expanded integrations, enhanced reporting, automation features) shall be deployed in subsequent phases.

C. Iterative Development and Agile Delivery

Vendors shall utilize an iterative development approach that includes:

• Sprint-based development cycles

• Regular demonstrations of system functionality to Division stakeholders

• Structured mechanisms for incorporating user feedback into future releases

34 Rev. 8/24

• Continuous improvement of system performance, usability, and functionality

D. Pilot Implementation Requirement

Prior to any statewide rollout, the vendor must conduct a pilot deployment that includes, at a minimum:

• One large law enforcement agency (e.g., Alaska State Troopers or Anchorage Police Department)

• One mid-sized agency

• One rural or bandwidth-constrained agency

The pilot phase must be used to validate system performance, usability, integration capabilities, and operational impact across varied environments.

E. Parallel Operations Period

The vendor shall support a defined period during which the existing referral process and the CCID Portal operate concurrently. During this period, the system must be validated for:

• Data accuracy and completeness

• Consistency with existing workflows

• Reliability of integrations and communications

The vendor must provide tools and support to reconcile discrepancies identified during parallel operations.

F. Training and Change Management

Vendors must provide a comprehensive training and change management plan that includes:

• Role-based training tailored to LEA users, Division staff, and other stakeholders

• Training delivery methods suitable for both in-person and remote environments

• Field-focused rollout support, including resources for rural agencies

• Ongoing support during transition, including helpdesk and user assistance

II. OPEN ARCHITECTURE, APIs, and VENDOR-AGNOSITIC DESIGN

The CCID Portal shall be designed using a vendor-agnostic architecture that avoids dependency on proprietary technologies or exclusive vendor platforms.

All system integrations shall rely on open, standards-based, non-proprietary APIs and data formats that are fully documented and available for use by the State of Alaska and authorized third parties.

The solution shall not require the use of…