What to do when tender websites show different deadlines

Scope

Define the deadline before comparing dates

The comparison key is more specific than the tender title. It should contain the procedure identifier, current notice chain, lot or part, response event, eligible supplier group and receipt channel. “Response event” might mean a tender, request to participate, clarification question, revised proposal, auction response or market-engagement questionnaire. A page can be accurate for one event and dangerous when its date is borrowed for another. Preserve a null when the page does not identify the event. Do not fill the gap from its visual position or nearby wording.

Identity comes first because similar titles and buyer names can hide a rebid, replacement procurement or call-off. Use the source-authority work from the official-notice check and carry its identifiers into the discrepancy log. AN-023 begins once the records have a defensible relationship. It does not decide whether two similar opportunities are duplicates, and it does not establish the legal identity of the buyer. If the procedure or lot link is still provisional, the deadline result must remain provisional too.

Evidence

Keep the raw observations before interpreting them

Create one row per observed value, even when two rows look identical. Copy the date and time exactly, including punctuation, zone label, offset, language and any words such as “before,” “by” or “no later than.” Record the URL, document name, page or structured field, publisher, source role, notice ID, version, issue or publication time and `observed_at`. For a dynamic page, also record whether the display was public or authenticated and whether it declared that times were localized. Store a screenshot or permitted source file with a content fingerprint when practical, but never store credentials, session tokens or private URLs in the public record.

Source role belongs to a fact, not to an entire domain. A public journal can be the statutory publication point for notice data. The tender documents can state precedence and amendment rules. A designated portal can control the act of receipt if the instructions say so. A buyer news page may only announce the opportunity, while an aggregator is usually evidence of what it displayed, not of what the buyer currently requires. Record `authority_claimed` separately from `authority_established`. A logo, official-looking hostname or API field name does not prove that a source controls the deadline.

Comparison

Remove false conflicts without erasing the source text

Two values are only candidates for reconciliation after their keys match. First separate publication dates, enquiry cutoffs, participation requests, tender receipts, presentations and auctions. Then separate lots and supplier stages. A date on a summary card may omit the clock time; that makes it less precise, not necessarily contradictory. Keep both rows and label the relationship `partial_display` if the complete official value supports the same calendar date. Do not invent midnight, end of day or the buyer’s business hours to complete a date-only field.

Next test instant equivalence. A portal can display 12:00 London and the notice 13:00 Brussels on a date when those values represent the same instant. That conclusion requires supported zones and date-specific offsets. It cannot come from country names or the reviewer’s current clock. AN-035 owns ambiguous abbreviations, daylight-saving rules and conversion evidence. AN-023 consumes its verified instant and records the relationship as `equivalent_display`; it does not redo that work. If the zone is missing or disputed and the difference could affect timeliness, the result remains unresolved.

• Mark `different_event` when the dates govern different required actions.
• Mark `different_scope` when they apply to different lots or parts.
• Mark `partial_display` when one source omits detail but does not contradict the complete value.
• Mark `equivalent_display` only after both values resolve to the same supported instant.
• Keep `unresolved` when missing precision can change the operational decision.

Lineage

Use change lineage instead of page freshness

TED eForms change notices identify the notice and version being changed. The published change notice contains the original notice information with changes applied, and a later change notice consolidates earlier changes while describing the latest change in its change section. This supports a precise link from the older deadline to the revised value. It also explains why the visible date on a cached or secondary page can remain old. Record the changed notice identifier, affected section, change reason, publication time and new deadline field. Do not infer a deadline amendment merely because a later document has a later date.

Other systems express lineage differently. Current UK guidance says that when a covered procurement is modified in the relevant circumstances, the affected tender notice and associated tender documents must be updated and republished or provided again. Find a Tender’s OCDS release interface uses notice IDs and a procurement-process OCID, while its notice model can link edited versions. FAR 15.206 requires a solicitation amendment when the Government changes requirements or terms, and lists a revision to the solicitation closing date when applicable. These examples do not create one worldwide hierarchy. They show the evidence to seek: an authorized change, the object changed and the stated effect on the closing date.

Decision

Accept a deadline only with procurement-specific grounds

The decision should use controlled states. `reconciled` means the observations now support one deadline for the comparison key. `superseded` applies to an older value tied to an explicit change. `separate_scope` keeps a valid date that belongs elsewhere. `unresolved_conflict` means material, credible evidence still disagrees. `source_unavailable` means a source named by the procurement cannot be inspected. `withdrawn` applies only when official evidence removes that response event. Each row keeps its status; the record never overwrites history with the accepted value.

No generic rule such as “the portal always wins” or “the PDF always wins” is safe. Read the tender’s own precedence, communication and amendment clauses. Determine what function each source is designated to perform, then cite the rule or buyer-issued link that settles this fact. A publication timestamp can order observations but does not alone prove legal effect. An API’s compiled value can be useful current-state evidence, yet OCDS also permits releases and a versioned record precisely because values change over time. If the chain or authority basis is incomplete, keep the conflict open.

Escalation

Protect the bid while the conflict remains open

An unresolved conflict needs an owner and a deadline of its own. Record the clarification cutoff, permitted buyer channel, access requirements, business impact and the latest safe time to act. Draft one question that quotes both source locations and values, identifies the procedure and lot, and asks the buyer to confirm the controlling deadline and time zone. An agent may prepare that draft. It may not create an account, accept portal terms, use someone’s credentials or send the question without authorization. Store the buyer’s response with its message identifier and propagate it as new evidence, not as an informal note.

Operationally, the team can adopt the earliest credible instant as a temporary risk envelope when an authorized owner chooses that control. Label it `internal_risk_limit`, never `buyer_deadline`. This may protect work from a late submission, but it must not become an unsupported claim about the procurement. If the conflict changes bid feasibility or the clarification channel has closed, escalate to the accountable bid owner and qualified counsel where needed. Do not assume a late-submission exception. EU rules, UK guidance and FAR examples all show that deadline changes follow particular legal and publication mechanisms; the supplier should expose the conflict rather than invent the missing act.

• Keep the buyer deadline field null while authority remains unresolved.
• Show any internal risk limit beside its owner and approval time.
• Block submission automation from consuming a provisional value.
• Recheck every named source after a buyer response or published change.
• Preserve the full evidence package for final receipt review.

Agent handoff

Return evidence that another agent can challenge

Lead with structured facts. The record should expose `comparison_key`, `observations`, `relationships`, `change_edges`, `decision_state`, `accepted_deadline`, `authority_basis`, `unresolved_questions`, `checked_at`, `valid_until` and `next_check_at`. Each decisive field needs a public citation or a precise private-source reference visible only to authorized users. Retain original-language text beside any explanation. Use nulls rather than guessed dates. A short human explanation can follow, but another agent should be able to reconstruct why a value was accepted without parsing persuasive prose.

Retrieval time is not publication time, and publication time is not necessarily effective time. Keep all three when available. Set `valid_until` according to decision risk and source volatility, then invalidate the record when a new notice, amendment, portal message or document appears. The output may feed opportunity qualification and schedule planning only when its state is reconciled and its validity window remains open. A submission agent must independently refresh the controlling source before acting and must still operate under explicit human authorization.