Catering Contract Reviews – avoid the pitfalls

The Scope and Evaluation mistakes we see most…

..and “How to Fix Them”

If you’re reviewing a workplace or educational catering contract, there’s a good chance you’re doing it for one of three reasons.

Service uptake isn’t where it should be, and stakeholders are asking uncomfortable questions.

Costs are rising, and you’re not sure which parts are fair market movement and which parts are avoidable leakage.

Or the contract “works” day-to-day, but you can feel the foundations aren’t solid… and you know the next tender could be painful if you don’t fix the basics first.

At EMC, we support organisations across workplace and education catering as independent advisors. We’re usually brought in when teams need clarity: what’s really happening, what good looks like in the market, and how to turn that into a specification and evaluation model that suppliers can respond to consistently.

This article is written for the people who have to live with the outcome: FM leaders, procurement teams, and stakeholder groups who want fewer surprises, cleaner decisions, and a catering service that is actually used.

It’s not a sales piece. It’s a practical guide to the scope and evaluation errors we see frequently, why they cause pain, and what to do differently.

The real pain points we hear during catering contract reviews

Before we talk tender documents, it helps to name what organisations are really dealing with when catering contracts come up for review.

We often hear things like:

• “We can’t tell if we’re getting value for money.”

• “Every meeting turns into opinion, not facts.”

• “The supplier says it’s out of scope, our stakeholders say it isn’t.”

• “We’ve got lots of data, but none of it helps decision-making.”

• “Hospitality costs keep creeping up and we don’t know why.”

• “The tender last time was exhausting. We can’t do that again.”

These aren’t small issues. They create friction between FM, procurement, finance, HR, students or employees, and the operator. They also make it hard to make confident decisions: renegotiate, re-specify, re-tender, or re-baseline.

From our perspective, these pain points usually trace back to a simple root cause:

The contract wasn’t built on a clear baseline, a measurable scope, and a defensible evaluation model.

When any one of those is weak, you spend the contract term managing ambiguity instead of managing performance.

Part 1: Scope errors that make catering contracts hard to manage

1) The scope is written in “aspirations”, not outcomes

A surprising number of scopes read like values statements rather than a service description.

Words like “high quality”, “fresh”, “innovative”, “healthy”, “engaging”, “value for money” are all well-intended. The problem is they’re not measurable. So when service problems arise, both parties can be “right” at the same time.

The operator says: “We’re delivering high quality.”
Stakeholders say: “This is not what we expected.”
And you’re stuck in the middle trying to arbitrate opinion.

What we recommend: translate aspirations into outcomes.

For example:

• “Healthy options” becomes defined by range, price points, and availability at peak times.

• “Great customer experience” becomes queue time standards, service behaviours, and how feedback is gathered and acted on.

• “Innovation” becomes a cadence of menu cycles, themed offers, sampling, and measured uptake.

This doesn’t make the service rigid. It makes it manageable.

2) Baselines are missing, outdated, or not trusted

During contract reviews, this is one of the biggest frustrations we see.

Teams don’t have a clear view of:

• headcount / student numbers and attendance patterns

• transactions and peak demand

• opening hours and true service windows

• hospitality volumes

• seasonality (term time vs non-term time, exam periods, event spikes)

When baselines aren’t clear, pricing becomes hard to interpret, and performance becomes hard to judge fairly. Suppliers also price risk differently during tendering, which is why bids come back “all over the place”.

What we recommend: agree a baseline that’s “good enough” and consistent.

You don’t need perfection. You need shared truth. Even a 90-day data sample, plus stakeholder input on what’s changing, can be enough to build a credible baseline.

3) Responsibilities and interfaces aren’t clearly owned

Catering touches so many operational interfaces that it’s often where ambiguity shows up first.

Waste streams. Cleaning standards and who does what inside/outside the servery. Pest control. Deliveries and access. Fire safety and permits. Equipment maintenance. Grease traps. Recycling and compliance reporting.

When responsibilities aren’t explicit, you end up with:

• scope disputes

• unplanned costs

• slow problem resolution

• relationship breakdown

What we recommend: write an “interfaces and responsibilities” section in plain English.

For each interface, clarify:

• who does it

• who pays

• what “done well” looks like

• how issues get escalated

This one change removes a lot of operational noise.

4) Hospitality is treated as a small add-on, but behaves like a major service line

In both workplace and education environments, hospitality can become a cost and frustration hotspot.

The common issues we see:

• inconsistent pricing and charging rules

• unclear service levels (drop-off vs served vs out-of-hours)

• unclear ordering and approvals

• last-minute requests that disrupt core service

• invoices that can’t be reconciled confidently

What we recommend: treat hospitality as its own defined mini-scope.

Set:

• ordering process and lead times

• cancellation terms

• staffing assumptions

• service standards

• transparent pricing structure and reporting

When this is clear, stakeholder experience improves and cost control improves at the same time.

5) Mobilisation isn’t properly specified, so risk gets stored up for go-live

This is a painful one, because it’s avoidable.

When mobilisation is vague, the start of the contract becomes a rush: systems, staffing, training, menu planning, equipment checks, stakeholder comms.

In education, term time adds pressure. In workplaces, the first few weeks can set perception for months.

What we recommend: require mobilisation detail, not promises.

Ask for:

• a mobilisation plan with dates and owners (client and supplier)

• TUPE approach and assumptions

• training plan and site familiarisation

• test-and-learn plan for the first 30–90 days

• “what might go wrong” mitigations

Good mobilisation is often the difference between a contract that settles smoothly and one that never recovers.

Part 2: Evaluation errors that lead to poor decisions and challenge risk

Even with a decent scope, the wrong evaluation approach can push you into a decision that looks defensible on paper but fails operationally.

1) Weightings don’t reflect what can hurt you

We see tenders where price dominates the scoring, while mobilisation, labour model, compliance and management controls are underweighted.

The unintended message to suppliers is clear: “Win on price, we’ll deal with the rest later.”

But you always deal with it later. Usually through service failure, stakeholder complaints, or contract variations.

What we recommend: align weightings to risk.

If your biggest risk is mobilisation and staffing, those areas deserve meaningful weight and evidence requirements.

2) Questions reward writing skills rather than operational capability

If questions are framed as “tell us about your approach”, you will get polished narratives and vague commitments.

Panels then score based on preference, not evidence. That leads to inconsistent scoring and challenge risk.

What we recommend: ask questions that force proof.

Examples:

• “Provide your proposed labour model for peak and non-peak periods and explain how it meets demand.”

• “Provide a mobilisation plan with milestones, dependencies and named roles.”

• “Provide examples of how you increased uptake in comparable sites, including what changed and the measured outcome.”

Then score with a rubric that clearly defines what good and excellent look like.

3) Pricing is not standardised, so comparisons become unreliable

This is the “apples vs oranges” problem.

Different inclusions, different inflation assumptions, different treatment of management fees, different subsidy assumptions, different equipment responsibilities.

If you don’t control the structure, you can’t fairly compare.

What we recommend: use structured pricing schedules and clear commercial rules.

That makes the decision quicker, fairer, and easier to explain to stakeholders and auditors.

4) KPIs exist, but they don’t drive behaviour

In contract reviews, we often see two extremes:

• no KPIs, so performance becomes subjective

• too many KPIs, so none are managed well

What we recommend: fewer, better KPIs tied to outcomes.

For workplace and education catering, examples include:

• service availability / opening compliance

• queue time or speed of service at peak

• food safety audit performance

• customer satisfaction measured consistently

• hospitality on-time and right-first-time delivery

• waste and sustainability reporting quality

KPIs should be measurable, reported in a standard format, and linked to governance.

A practical “contract review” checklist you can use this week

If you’re about to review a workplace or educational catering contract, here are six questions we suggest asking early:

1. Do we have a trusted baseline? (volumes, peaks, hospitality, seasonality)

2. Is scope measurable? (outcomes, frequency, responsibilities)

3. Are interfaces clear? (cleaning, waste, pest, access, compliance, equipment)

4. Are commercials comparable and transparent? (what’s included, what’s excluded, inflation rules)

5. Are KPIs meaningful and actually used? (not just written down)

6. Is mobilisation defined enough to reduce go-live risk?

If the answer is “not really” to three or more of these, most of the pain you’re experiencing is structural, not just supplier performance.

That’s useful information. It tells you where to focus your effort.

FAQs

What should a workplace catering contract review include?

A workplace catering contract review should include baselines (volumes and peaks), scope clarity, interface responsibilities, commercial transparency, KPI performance, governance, and mobilisation readiness for any change or retender.

Why do workplace catering tenders generate so many clarifications?

Clarifications increase when the catering tender scope is vague, baselines are missing, and pricing rules are not standardised. Suppliers ask questions to fill gaps so they can price and plan.

What are the most important catering tender evaluation criteria?

The most important catering tender evaluation criteria usually include mobilisation plan quality, labour model and controls, compliance and food safety, service delivery approach, customer experience evidence, and price/commercial model.

How do you make catering bids easier to compare?

You make catering bids easier to compare by using structured pricing schedules, fixed assumptions, clear inclusions/exclusions, and evidence-based questions with a scoring rubric.

What are examples of good catering KPIs?

Good catering KPIs include opening compliance, peak service speed, food safety audit results, customer satisfaction measured consistently, hospitality on-time delivery, and waste reduction/reporting.

What is the biggest risk when changing catering providers?

The biggest risk is poor mobilisation. If staffing, training, systems, and stakeholder comms are not managed with clear milestones and ownership, the contract can start badly and struggle to recover.

Final thought

If you’re currently living with catering contract pain, it’s worth remembering this:

In most cases, the issues aren’t caused by one big failure.

They’re caused by small gaps in scope, baselines and evaluation that compound over time.

Tightening those basics doesn’t just make tendering easier. It makes day-to-day management calmer and performance conversations more objective.