UNSPSC 50326303: Dried glaskin's perpetual rhubarb

The variety of rhubarb known as glaskin's perpetual rhubarb that has been dried for preservation.

UNSPSC 50326303 Dried glaskin's perpetual rhubarb, a Commodity code, shows minimal relevant recent state and local procurement activity. The code name does not align with the work actually being solicited under it in the available opportunity records.

The recent opportunities tagged to this code overwhelmingly reflect school nutrition and institutional food service procurement — fresh produce for school districts, cafeteria food products for correctional facilities, and commodities for nutrition centers — rather than dried rhubarb or specialty produce items. Issuing bodies include Hancock County Board of Education (Georgia), the City of Bridgeport Department of Public Purchases on behalf of the Bridgeport Board of Education (Connecticut), the State of Georgia, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice through the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Of the five records in the most-recent block, only one directly names the code: the Hancock County Schools IFB for fresh produce due June 26, 2026, which specifies over 200 line items spanning apples, berries, cruciferous and root vegetables, melons, citrus fruits, leafy greens, peppers, and tomatoes — none of which are dried rhubarb. The Texas TDCJ bid for prunes (IW236532, due February 20, 2026) is the closest match to a specialty dried-produce category, but represents a single item procurement rather than a code-family pattern.

Geographic activity is concentrated in the South and Southwest: Georgia, Connecticut, and Texas. The only solicitations with clear recent response dates are the Hancock County fresh-produce IFB (due June 26, 2026), the City of Bridgeport commodities IFB (due June 26, 2026), the State of Georgia food supplies IFB (due June 22, 2026), and the Texas TDCJ cafeteria food products IFB (due May 4, 2026, extended from April 21). The State of Georgia and Texas TDCJ are repeat buyers in this block. The code itself does not appear to reflect a coherent procurement category under current state and local practice; vendors evaluating pursuit should verify the actual commodity requirements directly in each solicitation rather than relying on the code name.