particular set of circumstances depends on the nature of the governmental function involved and the private interest affected by the governmental action.” Arctic Structures, Inc. v. Wedmore, 605 P.2d 426, 436 (Alaska 1979); see also McMillan v. Anchorage Community Hosp., 646 P.2d 857, 863-64 (Alaska 1982). The crux of due process is an opportunity to be heard and the right to adequately represent one’s interests. Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 192 (Alaska 1980) (citing Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42, 61 S.Ct. 115, 118, 85 L.Ed. 22, 27 (1940)). Due process is satisfied if the statutory procedures provide an opportunity to be heard in court at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 901, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Identification of the specific dictates of
holding that where a statute provides a procedure for judicial review of a bid protest a party may not circumvent the established procedures and was obligated either to pursue its right to judicial review or to file its declaratory judgment action in compliance with the procedures for administrative appeal set out in the statute holding administrative tribunal need not mirror judicial procedures holding exhaustion is required regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures holding that the parties having chosen a different tribunal may not reinstate judicial tribunals to resolve the controversy holding the antiinjunction act inapplicable unless tribunal is performing a state judicial function