New amendment added #1: This amendment to the RFI consists of the following changes:Update of Section 1: Section 1 of the RFI has been updated and renamed “Section I – Request for Information (RFI) – HPC, V1.” The changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised document.Extension of the submission deadline: The submission deadline has been extended by three (3) working days from the original deadline.

New clarification added: References: Section I = Request for Information; Annex I = needs assessment in Section I; Section II = Returnable RFI Form.(continuation)4.13 Does the HPC have an approved document classification scheme and retention schedule under Law No. 9154/2003 on Archives that the platform should implement? (Ref: Section I, 2.6; Annex I, 2.4.5 and 4.6).Answer: The HPC follows the archive law. The classification scheme is here https://klp.al/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/lista-me-afatet-e-ruajtjes-se-dokumentacionit.pdf.4.14 Under Council of Ministers Decision No. 972/2020, the High Inspector of Justice has full read-only access to justice-sector systems and data. Should the HPC platform provide a read-only role for the Inspector, and with what scope? (Ref: IT Centre for the Justice System, Decision No. 5, p. 39; Section I, 4).Answer: Yes. Full scope as per legal requirement.4.15 Annex I expects the prosecution case management system to go live at the end of 2028, while the roadmap's initial plan shows its development finishing at the end of 2027. Which date should bidders assume when planning the interface? (Ref: Annex I, 8.3; IT Centre for the Justice System, Decision No. 5).Answer: Please consider end of 2028. The time frames in the roadmap are indicative (in the tiitle - proposed deadlines). The actual time frames and deadlines are set by each institution within their procurement processes.4.16 Do the legacy sources (the ProMagjistrat export, the evaluation tracking file and the ranking tables) share a common identifier for each prosecutor, such as the personal number? (Ref: Section II, Form A, 4; Annex I, 2.3).Answer: They are different systems and don't share common identifiers.4.17 Annex I, 8 asks for e-Albania integration "where relevant". Which e-Albania services, if any, should the platform integrate with? (Ref: Annex I, 8).Answer: The civil registry.4.18 Can the HPC share a small set of anonymised sample documents (in Albanian, both scanned and born-digital) so that full-text search and OCR can be tested on real material before the build? (Ref: Annex I, 2.4.4).Answer: A test set of sample documents can be shared during the next stages of implementation. To test full text search, can be used decisions and administrative acts published on HPC website, under https://klp.al/category/vendime-akte-administrative/.4.19 Annex I says that where a prosecutor held more than one post, each result is weighted by the years served in that post over the total period, while Decision No. 95/2022, Art. 35(6) gives each office its own form but no combining formula. Please confirm that this time-based weighting is the rule to implement. (Ref: Section I, 2.2; Annex I, 2.4.1.4 and 4.2; Decision No. 95/2022, Art. 35(6).Answer: Yes, time based is the rule to implement.4.20 Could UNOPS, or the HPC through UNOPS, list the dashboards expected and say what each should show? The RFI names four (evaluation progress, statutory-deadline compliance, rapporteur and advisor workload, archive backlog), plus training-compliance and login-activity dashboards. (Ref: Section I, 2.3, 2.8 and 2.9; Annex I, 4.8 and 6.3).Answer: The dashboards expected are those listed in Section I, 3.3, 3.8 and 3.9. The final list, and the detailed content of each dashboard, will be agreed during the analysis phase. HPC may request further dashboards at that stage.4.21 The RFI asks for "real-time" dashboards. Does that mean live data, or updates every hour or once a day? (Ref: Section I, 2.8; Annex I, 4.1; Annex III.Answer: Real-time dashboards refers to data the platform produces itself, such as evaluation stages, deadlines, assignments, etc. Statistical data changes only when prosecution offices submit their tables, so dashboards based on it will update when a submission is accepted.

New clarification added: References: Section I = Request for Information; Annex I = needs assessment in Section I; Section II = Returnable RFI Form.4. FUNCTIONAL SCOPE AND DATA4.1 The needs assessment proposes that offices report each case once, with the platform generating all 14 tables, and says this needs no change to the Regulation. Section I asks for this "where possible", while Annex I requires table upload and direct entry from day one. Is single-record entry a day-one requirement alongside table upload, or a later phase? (Ref: Section I, 2.2; Annex I, 4.2 and 4.2.1).Answer: Its a decision up to the HPC, will be defined during analysis phase.4.2 Annex III lists case-level fields (complaint numbers, criminal offence articles, dates), yet Annex I says the platform will not hold case records. Will the platform store case-level rows, and is a data protection impact assessment expected under the Law Enforcement Directive? (Ref: Annex I, 6.1; Annex III).Answer: Yes. The platform will store the statistical tables as submitted by the prosecution offices, at case level: one row per case, with the fields set by the Regulation. It will not hold case files or records from the prosecution case management system. A data protection impact assessment is expected to be done, supported by the vendor of the platform.4.3 Can the companion requirements document for the prosecution case management system be shared? (Ref: Annex I, 8.3).Answer: You can find the ToR of GPO CMS at the link https://www.ungm.org/Public/Notice/295768 .4.4 Do the School of Magistrates, the High Inspector of Justice (HIJ) and the asset-declaration authority (HIDAACI) already expose services on IBIS, or will exchange be manual at first? Annex I names the "Government Interoperability Platform" for these exchanges, while Section I names IBIS: which is meant? (Ref: Section I, 4; Annex I, 8).Answer: Not yet, as IBIS components are under implementation.4.5 The RFI calls module 2.7 "Career Management & Disciplinary", and Annex I says active disciplinary proceedings are managed through a defined workflow, but does not describe it. Is a full disciplinary-proceedings workflow for the Disciplinary Commission in scope, and can its requirements be shared? (Ref: Section I, 2.7; Annex I, 2.4.2.1, 4.3 and 4.7).Answer: This is already public you can refer to detailed information at link https://klp.al/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/vendim-2022-11-21-311-i-perditesuar.pdf.4.6 Is digitising the physical archive backlog in scope (for example scanning and indexing past files), or only managing new records and physical-location references? (Ref: Annex I, 2.4.5 and 4.6).Answer: The scope is limited to managing new records.4.7 Approximately how many records are in each legacy source (ProMagjistrat export, evaluation tracking file, ranking tables, records registers, past statistical tables), and how many years back? (Ref: Section II, Form A, 4).Answer: The evaluation records cover periods from 2017 to 2024. ProMagjistrat holds prosecutor career and personnel data up to 2022, when the system was discontinued. Record counts for the ProMagjistrat export, the career and ranking tables, the records registers and past statistical tables are not yet available. They will be provided in the RFP.4.8 Should publication to the HPC website be automated through an integration, or is a publication task for the ICT sector enough? (Ref: Annex I, 1.2.2 and 2.4.3).Answer: Yes, publications on public website must be automated, a flow containing aprovals for publishing the information is needed.4.9 How many evaluation methodologies and scoring tables are in force today, and how often have they changed? The regulation has been amended five times since 2022. (Ref: Annex I, 2.2 and 2.4.1).Answer: The five evaluation methodologies are in force: first instance prosecutors, including SPAK prosecutors; appeal prosecutors; GPO prosecutors, split into two scoring tables for judicial and non-judicial roles; heads of first instance and appeal offices; prosecutors seconded to HPC. Regulation might change in the future, and that HPC must be able to configure these changes without software development4.10 Will the HPC provide the official document templates and an Albanian glossary of legal and procedural terms? (Ref: Section I, 2.5).Answer: Yes, it will provide them.4.11 Is mobile or offline access needed, for example during random case selection at prosecution offices? (Ref: Annex I, 2.4.1.3 and 3).Answer: No, it is not needed.4.12 Law No. 43/2023 (Art. 37(1)(f)) lists a government electronic document management system covering protocol and electronic archive. Is the HPC expected to use or interoperate with it, or will the platform's own records and archive modules be its system of record? (Ref: Law No. 43/2023, Art. 37; Annex I, 4.4 to 4.6).Answer: The platform will be its system record.(continue) 

New clarification added: References: Section I = Request for Information; Annex I = needs assessment in Section I; Section II = Returnable RFI Form.(continuation)3.9 Who supplies and operates the NAIS security agents, firewall, data-loss prevention and the "Tiering Model" for servers: NAIS, HPC IT or the vendor? (Ref: Annex I, 5.2 and 7).Answer: Please propose your solution on the security of the platform that you will provide.3.10 Is there an existing SMS gateway to integrate with, or must the vendor provide one? Annex I refers to the institution's mail server: which product is it, and who hosts it? (Ref: Section I, 2.1; Annex I, 8).Answer; SMS GW will be provided by HPC, we expect Vodafon or One MNO.3.11 Must the vendor hold ISO/IEC 27001, or is it enough that the system is designed and operated in line with it, given that hosting and operation may sit with NAIS or the HPC? (Ref: Section I, 3; Section II, Form A, 1(b)).Answer: The hosting will be on HPC.3.12 Which WCAG version and level is required (for example 2.1 AA)? (Ref: Section I, 3).Answer: It will be thee WCAG 2.13.13 During implementation, may development and test environments be hosted outside NAIS, for example in a vendor or Albanian private cloud, if they hold only masked data? (Ref: Section I, 2.9; Annex I, 4.9; Law No. 43/2023, Art. 11).Answer: The hosting will be on HPC. Yes, development environment can be hosted outside HPC.3.14 Is the HPC platform expected to be classified as critical or important information infrastructure under Law No. 25/2024 on cybersecurity? (Ref: Law No. 25/2024; Annex I, 5).Answer: It might be classified as either one of them. AKSK has some discretion in the classification. I think the development must be done assuming that it will be critical infrastructure.3.15 Will the platform hold classified information, for example the secret correspondence mentioned in Annex I, 4.6? If so, at which levels, and which accreditation regime applies? (Ref: Annex I, 4.6; Law No. 43/2023, Art. 37(2)).Answer: No. The HPC does not produce classified information. It receives classified documents from other institutions in some procedures. These will remain outside the platform.3.16 Approximately how many documents does the HPC produce each year, including scanned documents and audio or video recordings (MP3 and MP4)? (Ref: Annex I, 2.4.4).Answer: During 2025, the Council adopted 385 decisions and held 32 plenary sessions. In the same year, the Council made audio recordings of 58 plenary meetings. You can find decisions of 2026 at https://klp.al/2026/05/18/vendime-te-marra-nga-klp-ja-ne-daten-8-05-2026/ for further analyses.3.17 The justice digitalisation roadmap places IBIS in the High Judicial Council's data centre. Should the HPC platform be hosted in justice-sector infrastructure, or in the NAIS Government Data Centre? (Ref: Annex I, 8; IT Centre for the Justice System, Decision No. 5, p. 36).Answer: The HPC platform is a separate system from IBIS and will connect to it as a consumer.3.18 The roadmap requires systems that interoperate with IBIS to be submitted to the IT Centre's Board for approval. Should this happen before contract signature or during inception, and how long does approval usually take? (Ref: IT Centre for the Justice System, Decision No. 5, p. 11; Annex I, 8).Answer: The approval is HPC’s responsibility and will be obtained before the RFP is issued. 

New clarification added: References: Section I = Request for Information; Annex I = needs assessment in Section I; Section II = Returnable RFI Form.3. HOSTING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY3.1 Is there a preferred or mandatory hosting model, such as the NAIS government datacentre, private cloud or hybrid? Law No. 43/2023 on electronic governance requires state data to be stored in Albania (Art. 11(5)), with the primary node hosted at the Government Data Centre and the secondary at the Business Continuity Centre (Art. 42(2)). Please confirm this applies to the HPC, and whether NAIS will provide virtual resources or host HPC-owned hardware. (Ref: Section II, Form A; Annex I, 5; Law No. 43/2023, Art. 11 and 42).Answer: For the moment the platform is forseen to be hosted inhouse. Please prepare your proposal based on this aumption. No virtual resources will be provided from NAIS. Backup infrastructure will be provided by HPC.3.2 How many users are expected, split into internal HPC staff and Council members versus external users (prosecutors, heads of office, chancellors and IT officers in each prosecution office)? How many prosecution offices and prosecutors are in scope? (Ref: Not covered in the RFI documents).Answer: Internal users: Actually 65 staff members. Should plan for up to 80 internal users.External users: 16 prosecution offices in total: 13 first instance offices, Appeal Prosecution Office, SPAK and the General Prosecution Office. Prosecution offices has 341 prosecutor posts, of which 264 are filled actually were filled. External users will include prosecutors, heads of office, and the chancellor and IT officer of each office.Evaluation volume: the Evaluation Commission’s annual programme covers no more than 40 prosecutors a year. To date, 9 heads of office, 141 prosecutors in periodic evaluation and 18 prosecutors in accelerated evaluation have entered the evaluation process.3.3 Will prosecution-office users reach the platform over the public internet or the government network? (Ref: Annex I, 5.2 and 8).Answer: GPO users will have a dedicated dark fiber connection to reach the platform.3.4 Single sign-on is required. Is there an existing identity provider (for example Active Directory or an e-Albania identity) to federate with, or must the platform provide its own? Which MFA methods are acceptable? (Ref: Annex I, 5.1).Answer: No existing identity provider will be used to this platform. Google auth or MS Auth are acceptable in combination with personal emails.3.5 Is the NAIS Remote Signing Service available to the HPC today? Do all prosecutors and Council members hold the certificates needed to sign through it? Are there per-signature costs? (Ref: Section I, 2.1; Annex I, 4.2).Answer: Digital signature and digital seal must be provided by the platform at this moment. No certificate is provided to Council Members at the moment.3.6 Is the HPC already connected to IBIS and the government ESB? If not, who leads onboarding and approval under the IT Centre for the Justice System's Decision No. 9? (Ref: Annex I, 8).Answer: No. HPC is not currently connected to IBIS. The ESB, which is part of IBIS, is being implemented now. The rest of the IBIS platform is planned as a later phase. The Interoperability Framework (ITC Decision No. 9) is administered by the IT Centre for the Justice System.3.7 What availability, recovery time (RTO) and recovery point (RPO) targets apply? Which Council of Ministers decision on continuity and SLAs is meant? (Ref: Annex I, 5.5).Answer: In the second phase during ToR preparation a specific section for SLA will be created. HPC is indipendent institution and may not apply any CMD on Continuity.3.8 Does a second site for disaster recovery already exist (for example the NAIS Business Continuity Centre named in Law No. 43/2023), or should bidders propose one? (Ref: Annex I, 5.5).Answer: Interested supplier should propose only the HW infrastructure and Licensing for the backup site. This is optional to this RFI.(continue) 

New clarification added: References: Section I = Request for Information; Annex I = needs assessment in Section I; Section II = Returnable RFI Form.2. SCOPE, COMMERCIAL AND PROCUREMENT2.1 Annex I puts hardware, storage, networking, database solutions and operating systems out of scope of the assessment, but the RFI invites an optional hardware proposal. Should bidders price hardware, and for which hosting model? Should database licences be included in bidders' prices, or will the HPC or NAIS provide the database platform? (Ref: Annex I, 1.2.2; Section I, 2.10; Section II, Form A, 2(b)).Answer: Interested supplier may optionally offer price for HW and SW licenses based on their SW solution and architecture. No licence for DB will be provided by HPC or NAIS.2.2 Annex I names NAIS as the "Contracting Authority". Who will procure the implementation: UNOPS, NAIS or the HPC? Under which procurement rules? (Ref: Annex I, 1.4).Answer: HPC will procure Implementation.2.3 How many years of recurring costs (support, maintenance, hosting, licences) should Form B cover? (Ref: Section II, Form B).Answer: From B should cover a period of 3 years.2.4 The RFI requires "no explicit usage licence fee". Is a flat platform or enterprise licence acceptable, or only open source and perpetual licences? (Ref: Section I, 3).Answer: Usage of opensource software is encouraged yet at this stage there is no limitation on suggested licensing mode. Interested suppliers are encouraged to consider minisation of total cost of system ownership.2.5 Are consortia, joint ventures or subcontracting with Albanian firms allowed at the RFP stage? (Ref: Not covered in the RFI documents).Answer: At the moment we cannot comment or commit to RFP terms since it will be a separate activity from this RFI.2.6 Is taking part in this RFI a condition for being invited to the RFP? What is the expected timing of the RFP? (Ref: Not covered in the RFI documents).Answer: Participation in RFI is strictly voluntary and does not restrict participation in further RFPs in any way. The RFP potentially may be announced in 20272.7 Is there an indicative budget or funding source (government, EU or donor)? (Ref: Not covered in the RFI documents).Answer: There is no budget information abailable at the moment. The funding source is the government.2.8 Out-of-scope items (budget, procurement, transparency module, hearing recordings) are described as part of a "wider HPC digitalisation programme". Will those be later phases on the same platform? (Ref: Annex I, 1.2.2 and 1.6).Answer: Yes. The out-of-scope items are planned as later phases on the same platform. Respondents should estimate costs only for the modules in scope of this RFI and explain how their solution allows new modules to be added and reuse the common services: document management, records, archive, workflow, notifications, user management and reporting.2.9 Form A asks for post-go-live support during the stabilisation period. How long should this hypercare phase last, and what support level is expected during it? Is a separate maintenance phase expected after hypercare and, if so, for how long and at what service level? (Ref: Section II, Form A, 5(c); Form B, Table 1).Answer: Hypercare phase is expected to last at least 3 month and cover urgent bug fixes and changes required to system rollout, start and implementation. Maintenance period is expected to last at least 3 years and cover L2/L3 support2.10 Will the HPC own the source code of the custom modules? May the vendor contribute generic, non-sensitive work, such as an Albanian translation of an open-source component, to the upstream open-source projects? (Ref: Not covered in the RFI documents).Answer: Yes HPC will own the source code for all modules. Yes vendor can contribute to open source code.2.11 Who will operate and maintain the platform after handover: HPC IT, NAIS or the vendor? How many HPC IT staff are there, and with which skills? (Ref: Section II, Form A, 5(c)).Answer: HPC will mantain the platform on its own infrastructure. Actually there are 3 HPC IT Staff. Mainly they take care of administering if you are refering to any programming skills.2.12 The justice digitalisation roadmap (IT Centre for the Justice System, Decision No. 5) asks justice-system terms of reference to require an Albania-headquartered consortium member with Albanian-speaking staff, responsible for maintenance; a warranty of at least 2 years plus 2 years of maintenance; and delivery within 42 months. Will the follow-on RFP apply these rules? (Ref: IT Centre for the Justice System, Decision No. 5, p. 38).Answer: Yes, follow up RFP is expected to be fully aligned with relevant Albanian laws.2.13 Do UNOPS or the HPC have a policy or expectations on vendors using generative AI tools during development, for example AI coding assistants? Is their use permitted, restricted or subject to disclosure, and under what conditions for HPC data? (Ref: Not covered in the RFI documents).Answer: At the moment there is no policy of using AI tools during the development phase, yet is is expected that no HPC internal documents content will be shared with external AI tools or platforms without explicit permissions from HPC.2.14 The RFI does not mention artificial intelligence. Would the HPC want any AI component in the solution, for example assisted anonymisation of published extracts or document classification? If so, are there constraints, such as hosting models in Albania or not using external AI services? (Ref: Section II, Form A, 3(b); Annex I, 4.2).Answer: Interested suppliers are encouraged to suggest usage of AI components which are deemed beneficial for HPC system. Suggested  compoments are expected to be hosted inhouse and be compatible with relevant Albanian Law regulations 

New clarification added: References: Section I = Request for Information; Annex I = needs assessment in Section I; Section II = Returnable RFI Form.1. GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RFI DOCUMENTS1.1 The section "Proposed Stages minimum requirement from UNOPS" is empty. What minimum stages or phasing do you expect? (Ref: Section II, end of Form B)Answer: At this moment there is no minimal requirements on stages or phasing from UNOPS side - Bidders are expected to propose their vision and timeline.1.2 Form A asks for coverage of "each module described in Section 3", but the modules are in Section 2. Please confirm Section 2 is meant. (Ref: Section II, Form A).Answer: Yes, module description is on section 2 "Core Functional Modules & Requirements"1.3 The RFI refers to the statistical tables as "Annex II", the regulation's annex, while the RFI reproduces them as Annex III and uses Annex II for the legal framework. Is Annex III the authoritative and current version? Annex III also lists KPI indicators 15 to 21 beyond the 14 tables: are these in scope? It includes appeal tables but none for GPO or SPAK prosecutors, who have their own methodologies: will those be provided? (Ref: Section I, 2.2; Annex III; Annex I, 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.1.4).Answer: When the NA was merged into the RFI as Annex I, its own annexes were renumbered. Legal Framework became Annex II and statistical tables Annex III. The references were not updated. This will be corrected in the RFI (the document will be uploaded in the esourcing under the name: Section I - Request_for_information-RFI - HPC, V1). The KPI indicators are reporting needs proposed by HPC. For this RFI, treat them as indicative and describe how the solution would produce them. SPAK prosecutors use the same 14 tables, meanwhile for GPO prosecutors no standard statistical table forms exists. 1.4 Annex I, 2.2 cites Law No. 124/2024 on personal data protection, while Annex I, 5.3 cites Law No. 9887/2008. Which law applies? (Ref: Annex I, 2.2 and 5.3).Answer: Law 9887/2008 was repealed by Law 124/2024. The latter is the applicable law. RFI updated, Reference Section I, Annex I, 5.3 Data Protection and Compliance. Removed reference to old law No. 9887/2008 and replaced with law no. 124/2024.1.5 Annex I refers to readiness needs in "Section 2.6.2", which does not exist. Is a section on digital readiness or user skills missing? (Ref: Annex I, 4.9).Answer: No section is missing, Section 2.6.2 is not part of the RFI. The wrong reference to Section 2.6.2 is removed from 'Annex I, 4.9'.1.6 Form B refers to "Section I - TOR". Is the RFI the final scope basis for bidders' estimates, or will the HPC's draft ToR be shared? (Ref: Section II, Form B; Annex I, 1.1 and 1.5).Answer: RFI is a market research tool. For the actual procurement the final ToR will be shared as a part of a tender - it is expected to be quite close to the RFI in terms of scope yet changes are possible.1.7 Form A, item 2 has an empty point (e). Was a requirement left out? If so, what should it cover? (Ref: Section II, Form A, 2(e)).Answer: You may ignore point e.1.8 Section I cites Decision No. 96/2020 for the official prosecutor register, while Annex I cites Decision No. 405/2023 for the register and Decision No. 96/2020 for the personal file. Which decision governs each? (Ref: Section I, 2.3; Annex I, 2.4.2).Answer: Decision no. 96/2020 regulates the personal files and register of prosecutors, while decision no. 405/2023 regulates the internal functioning of the HPC administrative staff. RFI updated,  Reference Section I, Annex I, 2.4.2 Prosecutor Dossier Management, fixed the reference to laws.