RFP Amendment 2 (1).pdf

STATE OF ALASKA

Department of Law Civil Division

Legal Matter Management System (LMMS)

RFP #2026-0300-0265

Amendment #2 May 8th, 2026

This Amendment is being issued for informational purposes only. This document does not need to be returned with your proposal.

Important Note to Offerors: This amendment is to provide clarification and answers to a number of questions submitted regarding this RFP. Please see the below list of questions and the official responses by the Department of Law.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Name: Jedediah Smith Title: Procurement Officer Phone: (907) 465-4337 Email: jed.smith@alaska.gov or 03procurement@alaska.gov mailto:jed.smith@alaska.gov mailto:03procurement@alaska.gov

STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, CIVIL DIVISION

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

RFP 2026-0300-0265 — Legal Matter Management System (LMMS) Written Questions for Clarification

Amendment 1 to this RFP extended the due date for proposals to June 5th, 2026.

Question 1 — SEC. 1.02 Budget The solicitation indicates a budget of $8 million for the project. Can the Civil Division confirm whether this budget is annual or for the total for the entire 5-year project period?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The $8 million identified in the RFP represents the total project budget for the full five-year contract period. It is not an annual budget amount.

Question 2 — SEC. 1.04 Prior Experience Do the prior experience requirements in the first two bullets allow Offerors to satisfy the “cloud-based systems” standard through experience in hybrid or transitional environments? Specifically:

• For the first bullet, will the State consider qualifying experience that includes supporting public-sector entities with 289 or more active users in environments that combined SaaS, hosted/cloud, and on-premise systems?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. The Civil Division will consider qualifying experience that includes supporting public-sector entities with 289 or more active users in environments that combine SaaS, hosted/cloud, and on-premise systems. Any blended or hybrid deployment model that meets or exceeds the stated user threshold will be accepted as qualifying.

• For the second bullet, will the State consider qualifying experience supporting at least five state or federal agencies with 289 or more active users where the Offeror’s scope included implementation, migration, integration, or ongoing support of enterprise-scale systems, even if the agency had not yet fully transitioned to a SaaS or cloud-based platform during the entire three-year period?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. The Civil Division will consider qualifying experience supporting at least five state or federal agencies with 289 or more active users when the Offeror’s work involved implementation, migration, integration, or ongoing support of enterprise-scale systems. Full transition to SaaS/cloud throughout the entire period is not required, provided the experience is comparable in scope and complexity to the RFP requirements.

Question 3 — SEC. 1.04 Prior Experience (Team Structure) Where an Offeror proposes a team that includes subcontractors (for example, a cloud platform vendor, a data-migration specialist, or an integration partner), will the State allow the combined team’s experience to satisfy the Sec. 1.04 thresholds — specifically the “5 state or federal agencies at 289 or more active users” benchmark — or must the prime Offeror independently demonstrate these numbers through its own direct engagements?

Clarification is requested so Offerors may appropriately structure their teams to provide the State with the strongest combination of platform expertise and delivery capacity.

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. The Civil Division will allow the combined experience of the prime offeror and its subcontractors to satisfy the Sec. 1.04 experience thresholds, including the requirement for experience with at least five state or federal agencies with 289 or more active users. The prime Offeror does not need to independently meet the thresholds if the proposed team, as a whole, meets or exceeds the requirements. This approach is intended to support the strongest overall combination of platform expertise and delivery capacity.

This approach is intended to enable Offerors to structure teams that deliver the strongest overall combination of platform expertise, implementation and integration capability, and enterprise-scale delivery capacity for the State.

Question 4 — SEC. 2.01 Funding for the Division [Background Information] (pg. 10) Solicitation states “This data generates billing statements for each client agency and their associated funding streams and populates the LMMS to support accurate matter level financial tracking and reporting.” Does this billing generation currently occur in the existing LMMS or a separate software? If separate, which system? Does it require the billing statement to be posted back to the LMMS?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division uses a separate third-party proprietary billing system and a bursting process to generate billing statements, which are stored on a shared drive within the Administrative Services Division (ASD). These statements are not posted back into LMMS today.

As part of LMMS implementation, the Civil Division expects the selected offeror to help design a complete billing system and end-to-end billing process, potentially replacing, or re-developing the current third-party system, ensuring billing data populates LMMS to support accurate matter-level financial tracking and reporting.

Question 5 — SEC. 2.01 Ideal State — Offline Access (pg. 13) Solicitation states “Portals support multilingual access.” What languages does the AK Department of Law seek to have available?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

At this time, the Civil Division has not established a definitive list of languages that must be supported within the solution. However, the Division anticipates that future operational needs may require the ability to incorporate additional languages—particularly those relevant to Alaskan communities, including Alaskan Native languages. Because language and accessibility needs evolve over time, the system` should be capable of expanding its language capabilities without requiring significant redevelopment or vendor intervention.

Rather than setting a fixed list of required languages now, the State expects the offeror to design the system with long-term flexibility in mind. The solution should be able to support the future addition of new languages, expanded character sets, multilingual interfaces, and culturally appropriate translation workflows as operational needs develop. The offeror should also consider the diverse populations served by the Civil Division and ensure that any proposed technical approach accommodates future accessibility enhancements.

This forward-looking approach will ensure that the Civil Division can seamlessly expand its language support as business needs, community demographics, and service obligations change. The State values a solution that is adaptable and prepared for growth, enabling the Civil Division to respond effectively to evolving expectations.

Question 6 — SEC. 2.01 Ideal State — Offline Access (pg. 13) The requirements reference offline access as part of the Ideal State. Will the State please clarify what functionality is expected to be available in an offline or limited-connectivity environment? Specifically, is the intent to support full disconnected operation with local data storage and sync upon reconnection, or would solutions that deliver full functionality through mobile-optimized interfaces on cellular or low-bandwidth connections satisfy this requirement?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The intent of the offline access requirement is to ensure that LMMS users can continue working effectively when operating in areas with limited or inconsistent internet connectivity. The Civil Division does not require full offline operation, full local data storage, or full bi-directional synchronization.

Solutions that provide secure, reliable functionality in low-bandwidth or cellular environments will satisfy the requirement. At a minimum, users should be able to:

• View key matter and contact information, documents, notes, time entries, and calendar items in a mobile-friendly or bandwidth-efficient interface.

• Draft or enter information that can be temporarily cached and transmitted when connectivity is restored.

• Maintain basic usability during degraded connectivity without requiring a full local database, full synchronization engine, or full disconnected mode.

Enhanced offline features (e.g., limited local caching, queued tasks) may be proposed as value-added capabilities but are not mandatory. Specific expectations will be defined during implementation in alignment with security requirements and system architecture.

Question 7 — SEC. 3.05 / Illustrative Timeline — IRIS Integration & Financial Processes The illustrative timeline allocates 65 weeks to IRIS Integration and Financial Processes — the largest single phase and a defining financial workflow for the system. To develop a responsive cost and methodology proposal, will the State provide:

o the specific data elements exchanged today between ProLaw and IRIS (timekeeping, cost data, billing, payroll);

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The data exchanged today between ProLaw (LAW) and IRIS consists of two primary workflows:

• IRIS → LAW financial data

• LAW → IRIS matter (case) information

IRIS → LAW Data Elements (Billing) LAW retrieves an IRIS-generated spreadsheet that Fiscal modifies directly in IRIS prior to extraction. The file is saved and uploaded as a CSV for internal LAW Billing processing.

The data elements exchanged are not extensive or complex. Based on the mapping file, the IRIS export provides the following fields (Non-Bold Items), which are consumed by LAW Billing stored procedures (Bold Items):

• Document Period

• Document Record Date → Journal Date

• AL Program Code → Collocation Code

• Appropriation FQ

• Document Unit Code

• Document FQ

• Vendor Code → VL Vendor Code / Vendor

• Vendor Legal Name → Vendor Name

• Function Name (Ex) → Matter / Component

• Object Code / Object Description

• Budgetary Expenditures → Amount

These values are brought into LAW for billing-related processing.

LAW → IRIS Data Elements (Matter Lists)

LAW also transmits updated Matter lists to IRIS. These files are generated through the Matters SSRS report and exported as matters.csv. The CSV is manually uploaded by LAW staff to the IRIS FTP location, where IRIS processes the file automatically. This file included:

• Matter Numbers

• Associated function or case codes

• Any additional IRIS-required fields specific in the SSRS Matters

Report.

IRIS then validates whether each function code already exists, adds codes for the appropriate fiscal year, and returns a system-generated confirmation file.

o the current format and protocol (batch file, API, database extract);

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

IRIS → LAW

Data is manually exported from IRIS by a LAW user as a spreadsheet and uploaded to our internal web server in CSV format for processing.

LAW → IRIS

LAW generates a CSV file via SSRS, which is then manually uploaded to IRIS by LAW users.

o the frequency of data exchange (daily, monthly, on-demand);

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The data exchanges between IRIS and LAW occur on an as-needed basis and are initiated manually by LAW staff. While there is no fixed schedule, these exchanges typically take place roughly once per month.

o whether documentation of the existing ProLaw-to-IRIS interface will be made available to the Selected Offeror; and

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. Documentation for the existing ProLaw-to-IRIS interface can be made available to the Selected Offeror. Most of the relevant logic resides in the Billing database Stored Procedures. Prior to release, all materials will be reviewed and sanitized to ensure no sensitive or protected information is not included.

Combined with the existing IRIS-to-LAW mapping, these documents provide a complete technical view of the current data flow. We can also provide a technical explanation of the AIT-managed components and are available to walk through the process as needed with the Selected Offeror.

o whether the State’s Office of Information Technology or IRIS team will provide a technical liaison and test environment for integration development?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. The Civil Division is coordinating with our Department Technology Officer to ensure that both the Office of Information Technology (OIT) and the IRIS team provide the appropriate technical liaisons and support. An OIT liaison has already been identified, and we are working to secure an IRIS point of contact. A test environment and technical guidance will be made available to the Selected Offeror to support integration development.

Question 8 — SEC. 3.05 (ii) Proposed Project Plan and Timeline Overview [Deliverables] (pg. 20) The solicitation indicates a request for integration with IRIS, Alaska Court System, and TrueFiling. Can the Civil Division confirm that it has received the necessary permission from these services to utilize APIs for integration?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Though discussions have taken place have taken place with Division of Finance and the Alaska Court System, formal permissions and technical authorizations have not yet been obtained. The intent is to select an offeror capable of supporting API and Non-API integrations, after which the Civil Division will engage the relevant system owners to secure access, approvals, and documentation. The Civil Division anticipates collaborating with the selected offeror to complete onboarding for each external system.

Question 9 — SEC. 3.05(v) Hosting and Licensing [Deliverables] (pg. 25) The Civil Division indicates a user count of 280 users. The solicitation indicates “148 attorneys, 55 paralegals, 9 fiscal staff, 2 IT professionals, 53 administrative and legal support staff members, 1 chief consumer protection investigator, 3 consumer protection investigators, 1 labor relations manager, 4 labor relations analysts, 4 public advocate utility analysts, and 9 accounting and fiscal staff.” To provide cost-effective access based on functional needs could the Civil Division please indicate user count by the level of access they will need to the solution?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division’s LMMS RFP indicates a user count of 289 users. To support a cost-effective, role-appropriate licensing model, offerors should propose tiered access structures aligned to operational needs rather than fixed user counts. The Civil Division currently maintains 27 distinct access levels in the existing LMMS, each with different visibility and permissions.

should map solution tiers to these levels to ensure least-privilege access, security, and cost efficiency.

Question 10 — SEC. 3.05(vii) Security — FedRAMP Authorization Section 3.05(vii) states that the system “should preferably operate within a FedRAMP Moderate or High, GovRAMP, or equivalent environment.” Is FedRAMP authorization:

o a mandatory requirement for award;

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

No – it is not mandatory requirement for award.

o a strong preference scored as an evaluation factor; or

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes — this is a strong preference and will be scored as an evaluation factor.

o one acceptable option among equivalents?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

It is also one acceptable option among equivalent security authorizations that meet or exceed the same standards.

Additionally, would a cloud platform that currently holds FedRAMP High authorization satisfy this element regardless of the interpretation above?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. A cloud platform that currently holds FedRAMP High authorization fully satisfies this element, regardless of whether it is considered a strong preference or one acceptable option among equivalent security authorizations. FedRAMP

High meets — and in many cases exceeds — the level of security assurance the State and Civil Division is seeking.

Question 11 — SEC. 3.05(ix) Legacy System Migration (pg. 29) The solicitation indicates that the estimated Civil Division Network Drive Storage is 10 TB.

Can the Civil Division please confirm that this is the requested amount of offeror-hosted storage needed?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The 10 TB figure represents the current cleaned-up network drive storage footprint to be evaluated during LMMS migration. Final hosted storage needs will depend on the jointly developed migration strategy (which data to migrate, archive, or exclude). The exact hosted storage requirement will be determined during project scoping and final migration planning.

Question 12 — SEC. 4.10 Product Demonstration Section 4.10 requires the demonstration to be performed using the Offeror’s own environment, fully configured to show comparable workflows. Please clarify:

o May the demonstration be conducted remotely via Teams, Zoom, or similar screen-share technology, or must it be performed in person at a State facility?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. Demonstrations may be conducted via Microsoft Teams or a comparable screen-sharing platform. In-person demonstrations are not required.

o Will the State provide a structured demo script or scenario list in advance of the May 11–20, 2026 window, or should the Offeror design the demo flow to cover all items flagged “Demo Priority = Required” on Submittal Form A?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division does not currently plan to issue a detailed, formal demo script. Offerors should design their demonstrations to clearly address all items identified as “Demo Priority = Required” on Submittal Form A.

To help ensure consistency and fairness across vendor demonstrations, the Civil Division may provide a high-level scenario outline before the demo window. This outline, if issued, will highlight key workflows or topics the Civil Division expects to see. It is not intended to replace the offeror’s responsibility to structure its own demo or to limit the offeror’s ability to present additional features that demonstrate the value of its proposed system.

Offerors should be prepared to guide the demo using their own flow while ensuring full coverage of the required priorities.

o Will the State provide representative sample data — such as sanitized matter types, funding sources, and timekeeper classifications — for use during the demonstration, or should the Offeror populate its demo environment with illustrative data of its own construction?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division will not issue a full, standardized data set for the demonstration. However, to promote consistency across Offerors, the State will provide a high-level sample reference list of representative values (e.g., example matter types, funding categories, and timekeeper roles). These sample values are intended only to guide how Offerors label their illustrative data.

Offerors remain responsible for creating and populating their demo environments with sufficient sample data to fully demonstrate all items marked “Demo Priority = Required.” The Civil Division’s sample list is optional and not exhaustive; vendors may expand it as needed for a complete demonstration.

Question 13 What is the approximate number of matters added annually?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Based on recent full fiscal years, the Civil Division opens an average of approximately 4,833 matters per year. The current fiscal year is on pace with that average.

Question 14 Is there an expected start date and duration of the implementation?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

No specific start date or duration is established at this stage. Offerors should propose an implementation timeline aligned to their recommended approach and resource availability.

Question 15 What is the Civil Divison’s critical date to go live? Does this date correspond with any critical dates to migrate data from the legacy system(s)? Are there any critical dates of which we should be aware?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

There are no critical dates currently associated with migrating legacy data.

The Division will manage and maintain its current system throughout implementation to ensure continuity. RFP requirements. Final scheduling (start date, phased milestones, total duration) will be confirmed after contract award and development of a mutually agreed project plan.

Question 16 Can you confirm that the State’s Integrated Resource Information System is the following software https://www.irisglobal.com? If not, can you confirm that the State’s Integrated Resource Information System has an open API for connection to the LMMS?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

No. The website irisglobal.com is not associated with the State of Alaska’s Integrated Resource Information System (IRIS). Resources and job aids, including the IRIS Interfaces job aid, are available via the State of Alaska https://www.irisglobal.com/

Department of Administration, Division of Finance IRIS pages ((https://doa.alaska.gov/dof/iris/index.html).

The State of Alaska’s IRIS system is designed to be a closed, controlled financial system. Because of this:

• State agencies, partner organizations, and external vendors all integrate with IRIS using the same mechanisms:

o XML interface files (inbound/outbound) o Predefined interface templates (AP, JV, HRM, etc.)

o Scheduled secure file exchanges (typically via SFT or similar).

• There is no programmatic REST or Open API, even for trusted partners, because IRIS’s backend is based on CGI Advantage, which used structured file interfaces rather than dynamic endpoints.

Question 17 The Civil Division spans distinct practice areas and workflows. Please provide a list of each distinct practice area. Please provide a sample workflow for at least one practice area.

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Please refer to Attachment 1 (practice areas) and Attachment 2 (sample workflow).

Question 18 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, MCM-010 – Requirements state “Support merging multiple matters into a single matter while preserving history and auditability.”

Can you describe how this is done today? Can you provide a scenario of when this functionality would be needed?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

As matters move through the lifecycle (advice → litigation → appeal), separate matters are opened and related to each other. Staff may manually move or copy documents, deadlines, and work into later matters, but there is no system-supported merge. This limits a consolidated history, creates multiple matter identifiers, complicates stage-specific attribution of work, and https://doa.alaska.gov/dof/iris/index.html weakens auditability. A system matter-merge capability would maintain a single continuous record while preserving accurate historical context.

Question 19 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, MCM-018 – Requirements state “Support automatic assignment of a unique billing number when a matter becomes billable.” How are billing numbers assigned today?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Fiscal staff in the Administrative Services Division run the Billing Burst process. Statement numbers are assigned by ProLaw based on the selected statement date batch; staff process the batch, and the system generates the billing statements, logging in any failures. In short, billing numbers are currently assigned by ProLaw during statement generation; the workflow is manually initiated and managed by Fiscal staff.

Question 20 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, MCM-021 – Requirements state “Provide functionality to record, store, and manage notes, events, tasks, milestones, performance metrics, assignments, and full activity history associated with each matter or matter phase.” Can you provide examples of current milestones and performance metrics?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Here are illustrative examples:

• Child in Need of Aid (CINA) performance: number of active matters, children served, permanency outcomes (e.g., reunification, adoption/guardianship, relative placement), and average case duration.

• Mitigation efforts: reductions between initial exposure and final resolution through early evaluation, negotiation, and targeted discovery.

• Legal work/costs/outcomes: relationships among attorney/paralegal hours, expert/eDiscovery costs, and case results (e.g., summary judgment, settlements, trial outcomes), with estimated cost avoidance where appropriate.

• Administrative and advisory work: turnaround times for review and approval of agency requests, completion of regulation packages, issuance of legal opinions, and closure of advisory matters.

• Discovery and compliance performance: rate of timely responses to discovery, completion of depositions, expert report deadlines, and adherence to court-ordered schedules.

• Collections and recoveries: dollars recovered compared to amounts referred, average time to resolution, effectiveness of payment agreements, and percentage of accounts progressing to judgment or write-off.

• Court and hearing outcomes: frequency of dismissals, negotiated resolutions, appeal results, and achievement of targeted litigation outcomes based on case posture and risk assessment.

• Resource utilization: distribution of matters per attorney and paralegal, workload balance across teams, and alignment of staffing levels with case complexity and risk.

• Client-service delivery: responsiveness to agency inquiries, timeliness of updates, completion of assigned tasks within agreed service standards, and matter volume trends by agency or program area.

Question 21 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, MCM-031 – Requirements state “Support configurable matter-level risk scoring using structured fields, deadlines, complexity indicators, or historical patterns.” Can you provide an example of how you currently assign these designations?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Currently, risk is assessed manually and documented in narrative notes. The future LMMS should provide configurable fields (e.g., risk level, complexity, urgency, eDiscovery costs, critical deadlines, sensitivity indicators, historical patterns) and checkbox assessments (e.g., statute-of-limitations concerns, high document volume, public records implications, multiple parties, emergency relief risk). Certain historical elements must also trigger records retention rules (e.g., precedent-setting matters, policy development, significant settlements/judgments, long-term monitoring). These structured fields will enable reporting, dashboards, and compliance—capabilities not available in the current manual approach.

Question 22 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, MCM-034 – Requirements reference “Central Abbreviation Library & Personal Abbreviations Libraries.” Can you provide examples for both of these libraries?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. The Civil Division can provide examples of both the Central Abbreviation Library and Personal Abbreviation Libraries. Please refer to Attachment 3.

• Central Abbreviation Library (enterprise-wide): standardized, administrator-managed terms for consistency across time entries, notes, document descriptions, drafting, and search; includes agency acronyms and common legal terms; central overrides personal conflicts.

• Personal Abbreviation Libraries (user-specific): optional, user-maintained shorthand for drafting efficiency (e.g., frequent contacts, recurring terms, citation shortcuts), respecting central rules; central overrides on conflicts. Together, these libraries ensure correct spelling, drafting efficiency, and accurate search/retrieval.

Question 23 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, PCO-003 – Requirements state “Support assigning multiple matter or case-management roles to a contact or organization.” Are all assignees within the AK Attorney General office or will some of these assignments be to outside agencies and organizations?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The requirement was primarily focused on external parties, but the LMMS must support the full range of roles used by internal LAW staff, other State agencies (including client-agency contacts, legislative liaisons, and RSA coordinators), and external organizations such as outside or opposing counsel, vendors, expert witnesses, and judges. This structure mirrors real-world staffing patterns and the way information moves across matters.

Within the Civil Division, staff create and maintain contact records for all individuals and entities involved in a matter. Each contact is first entered at a global level with a general designation so it can be used consistently across the Division. When that global contact becomes related to a specific matter, the user assigns the appropriate matter-level role, ensuring the participant’s function is accurately represented for that case.

Question 24 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, WFA-008 – Requirements state “Generate documents, templates, or communications based on matter type, section, practice area, workflow state, or matter event.” Does the AK Attorney General require the vendor to create all templates or would it be preferable to be trained on template creation? If you prefer to be trained please define the number of divisions within the Attorney General office that would require training on template creation and automation.

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Preferred approach: hybrid.

• All templates must be created in Microsoft Word (standard platform).

• Offeror-supported setup for initial automation: configure merge fields and data mapping from LMMS, supply SQL or equivalent logic, establish conditional rules, and ensure templates correctly incorporate matter details, contacts, roles, workflows, and events.

• Role-based training: train six system administrators and up to five designated users to maintain and build templates without ongoing offeror assistance.

Question 25 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TFM-013 – Requirements state “Support pre-billing approvals, exceptions handling, and auditability before final billing.” Can you provide an example of this process?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Current high-level workflow:

• Internal pre-billing review: time entries (attorney/paralegal) and direct costs (from IRIS) are reconciled using ProLaw.

• Draft invoice and exception handling: draft generated per RSA; staff review and correct anomalies in ProLaw.

• Agency pre-billing approval: agencies review billing statement; questions addressed and corrections made before transfer.

• Auditability & documentation: after approval, IRIS transactions (by

Internal Exchange Transaction document (IET), Internal Transaction (ITI), Receivable (RE) are generated, with supporting documentation (e.g., Alaska Date Enterprise Reporting (ALDER) report, final ProLaw billing statement). This provides a complete audit trail from time entry to transfer.

Question 26 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TFM-015 – Requirements state “Support invoice creation, tracking, payment tracking, credits, adjustments, and invoice-level auditability.”

Are invoices currently created in ProLaw? Can you provide a template of the invoice?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Invoices are not created in ProLaw. The Civil Division generates invoices using SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS) based on structured billing data;

Administrative Services staff distribute invoices via email. A redacted invoice template has been provided to illustrate current format and fields.

Please refer to Attachment 4 for a redacted billing statement.

Question 27 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TFM-019 – Requirements state “Assign each transaction a searchable unique transaction identifier.” How do you currently assign a unique identifier? Can you provide examples?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

In the current LMMS, the time entry module automatically generates unique transaction numbers during time entry and cost upload. The future system must continue automatic assignment—without manual steps. We use these identifiers in reports and in communications with our ASD fiscal staff.

Here is an example of transaction numbers assigned to entered time entries.

Question 28 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TFM-020 – Requirements state “Support write-ups, write-downs, transfers, reversals, and other financial adjustments with a transparent audit trail.” How do you currently handle these adjustments? Can you provide examples?

• State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Currently, these adjustments are handled manually. A section supervisor or the Division Operations Manager notifies fiscal staff when time entries need to be moved to a different matter. Fiscal staff then review the affected records, determine the appropriate correction, update the necessary time entries, document the reason for the change, and retain all supporting information for audit. Typical adjustments include write-downs, transfers across funding streams or matters, reversals to correct errors, and occasional write-ups. The future system must manage these activities with system-generated audit trails to ensure accuracy and transparency.

The spreadsheet excerpt below shows an example of the time-entry adjustments made by role-based users in the Administrative Services Division. Each row represents an individual transaction, including the IRIS transaction number, the related statement number, the transaction date, the Matter ID, and the adjusted hours. This example reflects only the adjusting entries associated with a single matter and does not include the full set of adjustments applied across all affected matters.

Question 29 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TFM-022 – Requirements state “Support tracking of outside counsel, contracts, contract amendments, reimbursable service agreements, and related ledger activity.” How do you currently track outside counsel spend, etc.?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

This process is currently handled manually. Administrative Services Division personnel maintain contract and RSA ledgers by hand and reconcile them against IRIS views and downloaded ALDER reports to confirm accuracy. Outside counsel spend, contract balances, amendments, and RSA activity are tracked through these manually updated ledgers, with supporting documents stored separately. This approach is functional but labor-intensive and requires staff to cross-reference multiple systems to ensure completeness.

Question 30

Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DEM-006 – Requirements state “Support document and object storage at a scale suitable for large statewide legal operations.”

How many documents in GB/TB do you store per year?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

As stated in the RFP, the Civil Division maintains more than 27 TB of records across all three servers. We are actively reducing this volume by removing records that have reached their retention period or are otherwise eligible for disposition. Based on operational trends, we continue to generate several hundred gigabytes of new documents each year, though this amount varies depending on litigation activity, eDiscovery demands, and complex matters.

As cleanup efforts progress, the total storage footprint will decrease, but the LMMS must still support a scalable storage architecture capable of handling large statewide legal operations and year-over-year document growth.

Question 31 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DEM-007 – Current-State Example states “Template generation is a core legal productivity feature. The Civil Division has over 800 document templates.” What system do you currently use to create document templates? HotDocs? Jotform?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division does not use HotDocs, Jotform, or similar document-automation platforms. Template generation is a core internal function of the current system. A dedicated team develops and maintains Microsoft Word templates, ensuring consistency, accuracy, stylistic alignment, and version control across all workflows.

Question 32 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DEM-014 – Requirements state “Assign each document a searchable unique document identifier.” How do you currently assign this identifier? Can you provide an example of the identifier’s used?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

A system-generated document identifier is assigned when a document is created or added. Identifiers enable precise searching, retrieval, and auditing (e.g., detecting modifications or deletions and identifying the responsible user), supporting chain of custody and matter security.

Civil Division personnel routinely use these identifiers when communicating about a matter with colleagues or external partners who have authorized access. The identifier enables users to quickly locate and review the correct record. Within the system, these identifiers also support precise searching, efficient retrieval, and reliable auditing by showing whether a document has been modified or deleted and identifying the user who performed the action. This functionality protects data integrity, strengthens matter security, and maintains a consistent, defensible chain of custody for all document activity.

Question 33 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DEM-023 – Requirements state “Support documents that can incorporate or interoperate with electronic signature capabilities.”

What e-signature service does the AK Attorney General use today? Docusign? Adobe Sign?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division uses DocuSign for electronic signatures. Documents interoperate with DocuSign to support secure, compliant e-signature workflows.

Question 34 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DEM-025 – Requirements state “Support optional controlled external access to selected matter information, documents, messages, or progress data.” How many external users would need access to the select matter information?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

At this time, the Civil Division anticipates only a small number of external users needing controlled access to selected matter information. This access would primarily be for:

• Outside counsel

• Subject-matter experts

• Partner agencies

• Other authorized third parties involved in specific cases or projects.

The number of external users needing access at any given time is expected to be limited, generally ranging from a handful to several users, depending on active litigation or project needs.

This access would be used to share specific documents, progress updates, or selected matter information, not full system access. All external access must remain tightly controlled, time-limited, and role-based, ensuring users can only view the information the Division has explicitly shared.

Question 35 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DEM-028 – Requirements state “Allow role-based users to export records, documents, metadata, notes, matter details, and calendaring events for external use.” Does the AK Attorney General desire this to be a manual process of exporting? Or are you looking for integration with another system? If integration, please list the system and what information would need to be transferred.

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division requires both manual export capabilities and the option for system-supported exports, depending on the use case.

Manual Exports for Documents and Matter Records

The Civil Division needs to easily export documents, matter records, and related data for outside counsel, client agencies, and other authorized external entities. Because these

The export should support standard eDiscovery load-file formats (e.g., CSV, XML, JSON, or other vendor-supported structured formats) to streamline ingestion, reduce manual processing, and maintain chain-of-custody integrity.

Integration Requirements

At this time, the Civil Division does not require direct integration with a specific third-party system for exports. A well-designed export function that produces clean, structured data is sufficient for our current workflows.

However, the State is open to evaluating integrations in the future if they:

• Reduce manual steps.

• Improve reliability.

• Support high-volume document transfers.

• Maintain security and auditability.

requests often vary in scope and urgency, the LMMS must allow role-based users to easily export:

• Documents

• Metadata

• Notes

• Matter details

• Calendaring events

This ensures staff can quickly assemble and transmit complete, accurate records in response to litigation needs, information requests, or agency coordination.

Structured Exports for eDiscovery Tools

In addition to manual exports, the Civil Division also requires the ability to export data in a structured, machine-readable format that can be easily ingested into our eDiscovery platform. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Document files.

• Document-level metadata.

• Custodian information

• Timestamps and audit fields.

• Matter-related data sets relevant to discovery obligations.

Question 36 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, CDN-008 – Requirements state “Support calculation of future dates using business days, holidays, and rules-based triggers.”

Will the AK Attorney General be able to provide holiday and rules to the vendor for configuration?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The Civil Division can provide all required holiday schedules and rules-based triggers.

This functionality exists in the current system; system administrators maintain holiday rules and docketing rules (business-day calculations, observed holidays, rules-based triggers). Long-term, system administrators will maintain/create these rules without vendor assistance.

Question 37 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TIA-018 – Requirements state “Support automatic population of related fields and records so that entering data once updates all corresponding fields across the system.” Can you provide examples of data that automatically populates in your existing system?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Current LMMS examples include:

• Section → Budget component auto-population (e.g., Child Protection → linked budget component).

• Client/Funding: entering client number or funding source auto-populates appropriation number, unit number, collocation code, accounting template, funding source, billing group, RSA project code, client number, client agency name, and department name.

• Lead Attorney: adding lead attorney auto-fills a formatted name field (Last, First M.I.).

• Matter Designation → Mission Category mapping (e.g., General Litigation → Legal Representation).

• CINA contact creation: entering related contacts auto-associates parents/guardians/ICWA representatives within the matter’s contact structure.

Question 38 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TIA-032 – Requirements state “Ensure direct and persistent linkage between large-volume eDiscovery, evidence, and investigative document stored in State or Division-managed repositories and the associated matter or contact record.” How do you currently achieve this “linkage”? Are you looking for integration with another system? If integration, please list the system and what information would need to be transferred. Are you open to linking to SharePoint as a solution?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Linkage is maintained manually: staff reference repository locations within the matter record (e.g., notes or as an event in a matter or contact record). Manual linkage poses risk to retention/disposition compliance without strong oversight. The Civil Division is open to improved solutions, including integration with internal repositories (e.g., SharePoint) provided it supports secure access controls, large-volume storage, persistent URLs, versioning, retention/disposition rules aligned with State policies, and administrator-managed connections without ongoing vendor support. Required exchanges include matter IDs, file/evidence IDs, repository URL, metadata, and audit trail activity.

Question 39 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, TIA-053 – Requirements state “Support integration with the State of Alaska Court System's platform.” Will the AK Attorney General be responsible for obtaining permission to access the AK Court System?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Yes. The Civil Division will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and coordinating with the Alaska Court System to establish any required access for integration with CourtView and/or TrueFiling. This includes submitting access requests, completing any required agreements or security reviews, and working with Court IT to ensure compliance with their policies and technical requirements.

Question 40 Attachment A, All Requirements Matrix, DMI-010 – Requirements state “Provide a legacy-data archival, read-only access, or coexistence strategy for data not converted to the new LMMS system.” Where does the AK Attorney General intend for the legacy data to be archived?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

A specific archival location has not been designated. Legacy data will remain in State-managed or Division-managed locations, not offeror-controlled environments.

The final archival location and access method will be defined during scoping, with offeror assistance to evaluate Civil Division’s storage options, access/performance requirements, and security/retention/usability needs.

Question 41 Integration with IRIS Global

• Which modules or components of the IRIS Global software will require integration?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

The integration will primarily involve the IRIS Financial modules that support reimbursable services, billing, and cost-import workflows. These are the components currently used to exchange matter lists and billing-related financial data between the Civil Division and IRIS.

• Please provide a high level summary of each use case for the integration with IRIS?

How will the data be used within the solution?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

Integration use cases fall into two categories:

• IRIS → LMMS: Importing IRIS financial data to support billing, reporting, reconciliation, validation of funding sources, and linking reimbursable service agreement information to matters.

• LMMS → IRIS: Exporting LMMS-generated matter information and billing outputs (currently produced via SSRS and uploaded manually) to allow IRIS to align cost tracking, accounting entries, and matter balances.

Within the LMMS, the imported data is used for billing accuracy, financial validation, and ensuring RSAs and funding structures remain synchronized with IRIS

• If the integration includes user information, is the goal for user provisioning within the solution? Or will the user’s information be used as a reference within a Matter?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

If user information is exchanged, it would be used only as reference data, not for user provisioning within LMMS. The LMMS will maintain its own user account structure. IRIS user or organizational identifiers may be referenced for validating fiscal contacts, client-agency associations, vendor information, or approval paths relevant to billing.

Within the LMMS, the imported data is used for billing accuracy, financial validation, and ensuring RSAs and funding structures remain synchronized with IRIS

• Will the data exchanges be one-way or will linked data records need to be updated bi-directionally?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

A bi-directional exchange would provide the most value: IRIS data synchronized into LMMS for validation and LMMS data sent back to IRIS for billing and matter updates.

• If one-way, which direction will data be transferred? IRIS data synchronized to the Solution? Or data within the Solution synchronized out to IRIS?

State of Alaska, Department of Law, Civil Division Answer:

If a one-way model is required, the most likely direction is IRIS → LMMS, as IRIS enforces strict controls on external systems writing data back into the platform and requires Division of Finance approval before any interface is created.

• Approximately how many data points/fields of data will be transferred?

The data elements exchanged are not extensive or complex. Based on the mapping file, the IRIS export provides the following fields (Non-Bold Items), which are consumed by LAW Billing stored procedures (Bold Items):

• Document Period

• Document Record Date → Journal Date

• AL Program Code → Collocation Code

• Appropriation FQ

• Document Unit Code

• Document FQ

• Vendor Code → VL Vendor Code / Vendor

• Vendor Legal Name → Vendor Name

• Function Name (Ex) → Matter / Component