A Dining Contract Is About More Than Food
Campus dining touches nearly every aspect of the student experience—from recruitment and retention to campus culture, financial performance, wellness, technology and the overall perception of an institution.
Yet when a dining services contract approaches renewal, the easiest path can often be to simply extend the existing relationship.
Before doing so, university leaders should ask a more important question:
Are we renewing because our current dining program is truly delivering the best possible outcomes for our institution and our students—or because renewal is easier than exploring what is possible?
A competitive RFP does not necessarily mean a university is dissatisfied with its current provider.
It can be an opportunity to evaluate performance, understand the marketplace, establish future priorities and determine whether the current relationship—or another solution—offers the greatest long-term value.
Before renewing your next campus dining contract, consider these ten questions.
1. Are Our Students Truly Satisfied With Their Dining Experience?
Student satisfaction should extend well beyond whether students simply “like the food.”
Universities should understand student perceptions of food quality, variety, value, convenience, hours of operation, retail choices, dietary accommodations, technology, hospitality and the overall dining environment.
Most importantly, leadership should have objective data supporting those conclusions.
Dining is one of the most frequent experiences students have with their university.
Small frustrations experienced several times every day can quickly become larger perceptions about the overall campus experience.
2. Is Our Dining Program Supporting Recruitment and Retention?
For prospective students and their families, dining halls, student centers and retail locations are highly visible components of campus life.
The question isn't simply: “Do we have enough places to eat?”
The better question is: “Does our dining program strengthen the perceived value of attending our university?”
Campus dining should contribute to community, belonging and student life—and be an asset when prospective students and their families experience the campus.
3. Are We Receiving the Financial Value We Should From Our Contract?
University dining agreements can represent tens of millions of dollars over their lifetime.
Leadership should clearly understand commissions, management fees, meal-plan economics, retail profitability, catering performance, food and labor costs, capital commitments, equipment obligations, technology investments, annual escalators and performance guarantees.
A contract can appear financially attractive while still leaving significant value unrealized.
Universities should understand not only what their current provider is offering—but what today's marketplace may be willing to offer.
4. Has Our Provider Delivered Everything It Promised?
Think back to the original proposal.
New concepts. Technology. Culinary innovation. Capital investment. Marketing. Improved student satisfaction.
How much of it actually happened?
Universities should maintain a record of significant commitments made during the RFP and contracting process and continually measure whether those commitments were fulfilled.
5. Is Our Dining Program Keeping Pace With Today's Students?
Student expectations change considerably faster than most long-term dining contracts.
Today's programs must consider convenience, customization, authenticity, mobile ordering, flexible meal plans, global cuisine, allergen-sensitive dining, late-night options, grab-and-go, wellness, sustainability and contemporary retail experiences.
A dining program designed around yesterday's students may no longer meet the expectations of today's students.
6. Are We Measuring the Right Things?
Successful dining contracts require meaningful Key Performance Indicators.
Those should measure more than financial performance.
Consider:
- Student Experience
Satisfaction, participation, utilization and feedback.
- Operations
Food quality, speed, availability, cleanliness and consistency.
- Financial Performance
Revenue, commissions, food cost, labor and budget performance.
- People
Staffing, turnover, training and engagement.
- Safety
Food safety, sanitation, audits and corrective actions.
- Innovation
Technology, new concepts and continuous improvement.
And there should be accountability when agreed-upon standards are repeatedly missed.
7. Are We Getting the Right Level of Capital Investment?
Campus dining facilities require significant long-term investment.
Universities should understand what renovations, equipment, technology and infrastructure will be required during the next five, ten and fifteen years.
Then ask: Who should fund those investments?
A competitive process can help reveal what the marketplace is prepared to invest in the future of the university's dining program.
8. Have We Asked Our Campus Community What It Wants Next?
Before deciding what the next dining contract should look like, universities should listen.
Students, faculty, staff, finance, student affairs, admissions, athletics, facilities and other stakeholders can provide valuable perspectives.
But don't simply ask: “What's wrong with our current program?”
Ask: “What should the dining experience at our university become?”
Define the destination before asking potential providers to tell you how they'll get there.
9. Do We Know What the Market Would Offer Us Today?
The marketplace may reveal financial structures, technologies, culinary programs, operating models and capital commitments that didn't exist when the current contract was negotiated.
Even an excellent incumbent provider should be capable of demonstrating why it remains the best choice.
Competition creates transparency. Transparency creates leverage. And leverage can create better outcomes.
10. Should We Renew, Renegotiate—or Go to RFP?
There isn't one correct answer.
Sometimes renewing is appropriate.
Sometimes renegotiation produces the best outcome.
And sometimes a competitive RFP is warranted.
The important point is that the decision should follow an independent assessment—not precede it.
University leadership should understand:
- Today
Where are we today?
- Tomorrow
Where do we want to go?
- Performance
What has our current provider delivered?
- Marketplace
What could the marketplace offer?
- Structure
What structure creates the greatest long-term value for our students and institution?
