A total attachment limit applies to the package rather than granting the same allowance to every file. Procurement preparation should preserve that distinction while keeping the requested evidence readable. A historical UNESCO Baghdad RFQ states a total file limit for email submission. This article explains the package-reading task; it does not send an offer, report successful delivery or certify the platform being procured.

The notice states a total limit

The UNESCO IRQ/RFQ/25/29 notice, checked on 3 October 2026, states that submission files must not exceed 10 MB total. It is a historical March 2025 RFQ. The original description’s closing date was subsequently extended by amendment. No actual attachment package, email or acknowledgement was examined here.

Inventory the complete package

An illustrative preparation record can list the files actually required, their identities and the measured package size once real files exist. Do not assume that several individually small files satisfy a total limit when their combined size has not been checked. A hypothetical file list should not be reported as the real submitted package.

Keep the buyer’s requirement references beside the inventory so that reducing size does not silently remove requested material. An unexplained omission is not an evidence-preserving solution. If the package cannot fit while retaining the necessary material, the responsible person needs the applicable buyer instructions and clarification.

Protect readability while preparing files

A smaller file can become less useful if essential text or figures are no longer legible. The preparation review can ask whether the actual evidence remains readable after any permitted conversion or optimization. This article has converted no files and makes no claim about the readability of a supplier’s documents.

Do not assume compression, archives, cloud links or multiple messages are permitted merely because they would reduce the apparent attachment size. The actual submission conditions determine acceptable arrangements. A researcher should preserve that question rather than recommend an unsupported workaround.

Keep package readiness and receipt separate

A package that meets a measured size target is not proof that the buyer received or accepted it. Separate the preparation state from the sending state and the actual receipt evidence. No acknowledgement has been reviewed here, and a draft email cannot be counted as a completed submission.

Actual route and acceptance decisions retain a human hold. This article also offers no judgement about licensing, cybersecurity, deployment or the technical quality of the platform described in the RFQ. The public file limit supports a documentation question, not an assessment of the procured system.

The bounded result

Our editorial preference is to check the complete evidence package against the stated total limit before treating it as prepared. The useful record retains file identity, measured size, readability questions and the supporting buyer instruction. No package has been uploaded or emailed. This historical example provides no current deadline or guarantee of acceptance; it shows why package capacity and submission success must remain separate pieces of evidence.