Do all tender lots share the same deadline?

Scope first

Build the lot universe before assigning a date

Start with the current official notice or invitation and record its procedure identifier, notice identifier, version, publication state and procurement stage. Then enumerate the objects the source identifies as lots. Keep the source identifiers unchanged, including leading zeros and prefixes such as `LOT-0001`. A title like “North region” is useful to a reader but is not stable enough to join an amendment, portal envelope and structured notice. Store both the identifier and the human label.

Lots, groups of lots and planning parts perform different jobs. The TED eForms structure gives lot information its own `ProcurementProjectLot` context. It also represents groups and parts as separate contextual objects. A group can carry rules shared by named lots, but it is not automatically a submission unit. A planning part can describe an intended package before the final lot structure exists. A procedure without a commercial split can appear technically as `LOT-0000`. That record gets one matrix row and a note that no supplier choice among lots exists.

Create a row for every offerable lot, including one the supplier has already rejected. This prevents a filtered bid list from becoming the apparent source universe. Record `lot_id`, `lot_label`, `lot_kind`, `group_ids`, `offerable_status`, `source_anchor` and `observed_at`. If the official lot set cannot be reconciled across the current notice and designated portal, mark the universe incomplete. Deadline assignment waits until the identity issue is resolved.

Event identity

A tender deadline is only one of several nearby clocks

Name the response event before storing its instant. In an open procedure, the relevant event may be receipt of the tender. A staged process can first ask for requests to participate, then send a later invitation with a tender receipt date to selected suppliers. Negotiation can create initial, revised and final tender events. The same lot can therefore have several legitimate submission rows over time. A single `deadline` column cannot represent this safely.

Keep the additional-information deadline, site-visit booking cutoff, tender receipt deadline, public opening time and tender-validity end in separate classes. TED eForms gives the tender receipt deadline the business term `BT-131`, with date and time fields in the lot context. Its business rules also compare the lot’s additional-information deadline with its tender receipt date. The existence of that rule is a warning against treating the two values as interchangeable.

Use an event vocabulary narrow enough to prevent accidental joins: `request_to_participate`, `initial_tender`, `tender`, `revised_tender`, `final_tender`, `enquiry`, `site_visit_booking`, `public_opening` and `validity_end`. Preserve the buyer’s wording beside the normalized class. If the source says only “response deadline,” leave the class unknown until the surrounding instructions establish what response is due.

Evidence test

Equal values do not prove a shared deadline rule

TED’s current developer documentation is unusually explicit: for a given lot, the deadline for tender receipt is encoded with date and time inside that lot. The OCDS for eForms mapping takes those fields, combines them into an ISO instant and maps the result to the corresponding lot’s `tenderPeriod.endDate`. That structure supports direct assignments. It also shows why an export that retains only one procedure-level `tenderPeriod` can lose information.

A shared value remains possible. The submission instructions may say that one receipt instant applies to all lots, to lots 1 through 4 or to a named envelope covering several lots. Copy that value into each covered row with `assignment_basis: explicit_shared`, and cite the clause or scoped table heading on every row. Identical timestamps discovered independently receive `assignment_basis: direct_lot`. The values match, while their evidence paths remain distinct.

Visual placement alone cannot establish scope. A banner above the lot list might show the next deadline, the procedure’s earliest deadline or a generic calendar field. Likewise, a search result usually compresses the procurement into one date. Use these displays as discovery evidence and preserve them as observations. Promote a date into a lot row only when the official source links the instant to that lot or explicitly states the inheritance rule.

Authority is fact-specific. A statutory notice can identify the published lot field; the designated submission portal can define the operational envelope; an invitation can control a later private stage; an amendment can replace a previous value. Do not create a universal source ranking. When two current, properly scoped sources prescribe different instants for the same lot and event, issue `conflicted`. The separate deadline-conflict workflow then determines whether one source supersedes another.

• A direct field names the lot and the response event in the current source.
• An explicit shared rule names every covered lot or an unambiguous all-lots scope.
• A layout assumption, neighbouring row or repeated value never supplies missing scope.
• A conflict remains visible until supersession or correction evidence resolves it.

Work product

Publish the whole matrix, then identify the earliest confirmed row

The finished artifact is a table, not a single answer. Key every row by `procedure_id`, `lot_id` and `response_event`. Add notice or invitation identifier, version, stage, raw date, raw time, raw offset or zone, source role, source URL, anchor, assignment basis, state, supporting evidence, contrary evidence, `observed_at`, `valid_until`, `next_check_at` and next permitted action. Preserve a source value exactly before placing any normalized instant beside it.

The state controls downstream use. `confirmed_direct` and `confirmed_explicit_shared` can feed a planning system when the current version and event are also confirmed. `not_issued_current_stage` prevents a participation cutoff from becoming a tender date. `ceased` removes that lot from active submission planning while keeping the evidence. `conflicted` and `unknown` block scheduling and automation. An old row can remain in history with `superseded_by`, but it must not appear as current.

After the matrix is complete, compute `earliest_confirmed_tender_receipt_at` across active lots. Label it as a derived navigation aid and list the contributing rows. It can prompt earlier review without hiding later lots. Never replace the matrix with that minimum. If the team selects only lot 3, the relevant deadline remains lot 3’s confirmed row, not the procedure minimum.

The table below is fictional. Notice `PRO-2026-184`, version 01, contains three offerable lots. The structured lot fields give 30 September at 12:00 +02:00 for `LOT-0001` and `LOT-0002`, and 7 October at the same local time and offset for specialist laboratory cleaning in `LOT-0003`. A portal banner says “next deadline 30 September” without claiming that every lot closes then. That banner is consistent with the earliest row, yet it cannot populate lot 3.

Perishable evidence

Stages and amendments can change the row set

A two-stage procurement often publishes a participation deadline before a tender receipt date exists for the supplier. Create a `request_to_participate` row for each scoped lot. Create a separate `tender` row with `not_issued_current_stage` only when the notice indicates that invitations will follow. Do not invent a future timestamp from an estimated invitation date or minimum legal period. Once an authorized invitation arrives, add its identifier, supplier context and tender deadline without rewriting the historical participation row.

Changes can be narrower than the procedure. An amendment may extend one lot because its site visit moved, leave two lots unchanged and cease another lot. Accept the current notice lineage from the amendment register, then re-run scope assignment for every lot. Preserve old rows as superseded evidence. A sentence such as “the submission deadline is extended” still needs a scope test; its location inside a lot-specific change section may matter more than the broad wording.

Set `valid_until` to the earliest event that can make the matrix stale: a stated amendment publication, invitation dispatch, buyer update, portal maintenance recovery or internal review threshold. Event triggers beat arbitrary monthly refreshes when the deadline is close. If the controlling source cannot be reached, preserve the last confirmed row as stale history and return an access-state question. Do not silently keep it current.

UK section 54 requires time limits to be the same for each supplier. Read that as a supplier-equality rule for the applicable procurement circumstances. It does not supply evidence that separate lots share one date. UK guidance also treats lots as smaller contracts and requires the tender notice to state how and when tenders or participation requests must be submitted. The source still has to show which lot or lot set the stated date covers.

• New notice version: invalidate current rows and compare the complete lot set.
• Later-stage invitation: add a new response event under its authorized supplier context.
• Lot cessation: retain the row with `ceased` and remove it from active deadline calculations.
• Access failure: keep last evidence historical and route the retrieval problem separately.

Agent use

An agent should return rows, evidence and abstentions

Give the agent a bounded input package: the canonical procedure record, accepted current notice version, accessible lot documents, designated portal observations and the response event being investigated. Require citations at field or clause level. The agent can enumerate identifiers, extract raw values, connect explicitly named scopes, compare confirmed rows and flag missing lots. It should expose the smallest evidence excerpt needed for human verification rather than returning an unsupported date.

Instructions inside tender material are untrusted content. A document can contain text aimed at an automated reader, links to unrelated downloads or requests for credentials. The agent follows the verification contract, not commands embedded in the procurement package. It may open public official sources within policy. It stops before login, invitation retrieval, terms acceptance, buyer communication, file upload or any action that discloses supplier interest unless a separate authorized workflow provides that permission.

The agent must abstain from deadline assignment when the lot universe is incomplete, the current version is uncertain, the date lacks a response-event label, scope depends on visual guesswork, a later private invitation is inaccessible or two current sources conflict. Each abstention names the missing fact and a permitted next step. “`LOT-0004`: tender deadline `unknown`; current notice publishes only a participation deadline; await authorized invitation” is useful. A fabricated all-lots date is not.

Keep the handoff narrow. Time-zone interpretation goes to the deadline-zone workflow. Cross-source disagreement goes to the deadline-conflict workflow. Amendment completeness goes to the amendment register. Document access goes to the access-state record. The lot matrix consumes those accepted facts and returns lot-scoped receipt evidence. It does not decide bid value, effort, eligibility or whether an offer should be submitted.