Below is a screen capture of the technical requirements of the Photography/Artwork Submission, assuming the Thomas link was to the proper site and requirements. Our OP seems to have invented the 4x6 requirement as that does not occur anywhere in the PDF. If they had stated such an aspect, cropping to 2x3 would have been relevant.

But when in comes to editing and 'saving' to RAW in Adobe Camera RAW, I need to break it to you: no you are not saving to the RAW file. The only software that 'writes' into an original RAW file might be the original camera manufacturer's software. All other software that 'save' RAW edits do that via a XMP sidecar file or a 3rd party wrapper such as a DNG or PSD. Neither of these are accurately described as 'saving' the edits to a raw format.

Coming back to the requirements, the first bullet saying a "RAW of TIFF" is nonsense. A request for 300 dpi is nonsense. A digital scan of original artwork at 360 dpi and no smaller than 8x10in is nonsense. The best one should do is deliver a high-resolution JPEG in the sRGB colorspace, with a minimum of cloning / masking edits to the original capture. Then, hope they select that entry and the photographer can work with the Commonwealth, as needed, to get any confirmations or changes to the state's point-of-contact and then get published.

Possibly, and I emphasize possibly, the author of these technical requirements was trying to assure a minimum of post processing alterations? See bullet point 2 about free of digital alterations. Alas, their language won't achieve a finished image from a qualified photographer, as well as they've created requirements that will tend to exclude all the JPEG-only photographers.

Their requirements raise many questions. They require 300 dpi. That’s completely meaningless. When submitting digital images there is no such as dpi. They say no digital processing except minor cropping and they’ll accept JPEG but prefer raw or TIFF. Raw images aren’t a finished image and aren’t designed for optimal viewing. Do they intend to process our images as they see fit? I guess for people that submit it’s more about the cachet of having their work published more than it is the money. Yeah but if I can’t process it as to my vision then it’s not totally my work.

It will definitely do a good job, if you need to enlarge up to 12x17 inch originals. The optical resolution is 2400dpi. The 4800dpi figure is just the stepper motor movement. It scans in half-line increments. That improves image smoothness a bit, but resolution is 2400.

Just know that scanners like that are slow. If you were to use a high megapixel count camera and macro lens on a copy stand or tripod, and light your artwork with color correct lights from the correct angles, you could achieve similar or better quality in less time.

At the photo lab I worked for, years ago, we had three UMAX scanners that were very similar to the Epson 12000XL, right down to the specs. They were very good for scanning batches of small prints for school memory books (elementary school yearbooks). We also had a huge copy camera for making large composites (before the digital era). It could copy paste-ups of prints up to 60" by 40" onto Vericolor Internegative sheet film up to 14" by 11". These days, I would use a high megapixel full frame or medium format camera to copy art that big.