UNSPSC 50305801: Amber jewel plums

The variety of plums known as amber jewel plums

UNSPSC 50305801 Amber jewel plums (Commodity) shows minimal recent state and local procurement activity aligned with the code's scope. Among 28 recent opportunities in the dataset, only one—the City of Edinburg, Texas RFP 2026017 for a Child and Adult Care Food Program meal service posted July 16, 2026, with an August 4, 2026 response date—mentions fresh fruit as a line item within a broader food procurement. That solicitation encompasses five supply categories (beverages, paper goods, food products including fruits and vegetables, janitorial supplies, and nonfood products) for approximately 400 children ages 1–18 daily, with local-vendor preference applied under Texas Local Government Code Section 271.9051. The remaining 27 opportunities in the dataset address other fresh produce categories (bananas, mixed fresh fruit and vegetables, berries, apples, citrus, root vegetables, leafy greens) or processed/dried goods, but do not specifically solicit amber jewel plums or other named plum varieties.

State and local governments appear to source fresh plums, if at all, as commodity-line items within broader institutional fresh produce contracts rather than as standalone solicitations. School districts, child care food programs, and senior services dominate the issuing bodies across the recent-opportunities block, with geographic concentration in Georgia (Hancock County, Dougherty County, Bryan County, Bulloch County, Liberty County, Muscogee County, Savannah-Chatham County, Henry County, Glynn County), Texas (Edinburg, McAllen, Austin), Florida (Hillsborough County), Connecticut (Meriden), and single opportunities in Mississippi, Wisconsin, and California. No dedicated plum-variety procurement notices appear in the current dataset. For business development purposes, pursuing amber jewel plum supply requires targeting multi-item fresh produce RFPs, IFBs, and RFQs where plums are specified as commodity options within mixed-fruit line items, typically weighted at 30–40% of evaluation scores toward cost and the remainder toward quality, delivery, and compliance.