Bidding a PM Program for a Restaurant Group

A multi-site bid is decided by 3 things and price is rarely the first of them. The bid that wins is usually the only 1 that priced the sites individually, because a single per-site figure across 40 kitchens is a guess in both directions.

The short version

A group tender is a different exercise from selling an agreement to a restaurant. The buyer is a facilities or procurement function, the document is compared against others in a spreadsheet, and nobody involved will be standing next to the equipment.

Which changes what wins. Specificity, coverage and reporting beat rapport, because rapport does not survive a comparison table.

It also changes the risk. A badly priced single site is a small mistake and a badly priced program across forty kitchens is a year of loss-making work you cannot easily exit.

The 3 things a group is actually comparing

What they compare	What wins it
Coverage and capacity	Evidence you can attend every site, not only most of them
Reporting	What arrives after each visit and annually, per site and per piece of equipment
Price	Priced per site, with the reasons visible

Coverage is the first filter and it eliminates most bidders quietly. A group with sites across a wide area is looking for somebody who can serve all of them, and a bid covering eighty percent is usually rejected without a conversation.

Survey before you price, or price with a stated assumption

The decision that determines whether the program is profitable.

A per-site figure applied across forty kitchens assumes those kitchens are similar. They are not. One has nineteen equipment and a plant room on a roof, another has six and everything at ground level.

The correct answer is a survey of a representative sample before bidding, or a price stated against a defined equipment count with a mechanism for sites that differ.

Groups accept the second readily, because they know their portfolio is uneven and they would rather have a mechanism than a renegotiation. What they will not accept is a price that changes after signature with no clause behind it.

Roopairs holds equipment asset records per site, so where you already attend some of these kitchens, the survey work is partly done and the bid can name real equipment rather than assumptions.

The equipment schedule is your strongest document

And most bidders do not include one.

A bid that lists, per site, the equipment to be covered, with manufacturer and model, is answering a question the group cannot answer itself. Most groups do not have a reliable equipment list for their own portfolio.

Offering to build it is therefore a genuine service and a strong commercial position. The party that holds the equipment register is difficult to replace, whatever the next tender says.

Where you have not attended the sites, propose the survey as a priced first phase rather than absorbing it. It is real work, it produces something the group keeps, and it prices the rest honestly.

Price these 4 elements separately

1. Planned visits, per site, by equipment count and travel
2. Reactive attendance, at a rate, rather than bundling hours into the annual figure
3. Out-of-hours cover, as availability plus attendance, since it is a distinct commitment
4. Reporting, included and named, so the group can see it is part of what they are buying

Bundling two and three into the annual price is what produces the loss-making group contract. Included hours get fully consumed at the sites with the worst equipment, and the good sites subsidize them invisibly.

What procurement will ask that an operator never does

Four things worth preparing rather than improvising.

Insurance and certifications, in documented form, for the company and for the technicians who will attend.

Response performance, which they may ask you to evidence rather than assert. A service company that can produce attendance times from its records is in a different position from one that describes them.

Escalation, meaning who is called when a site is unhappy and what happens next.

And how work is received. Whether you can accept jobs from their facilities platform, work to their references, and close out in the format they need. That last one is frequently a hard requirement rather than a preference.

When to decline a group bid

Two cases, and both are better refused than won.

Where the geography does not work. Forty sites across a wide area, priced as though they cluster, is a route problem that no annual figure survives.

And where the terms include an inclusive reactive commitment on equipment you have not seen. That is an insurance product, priced by somebody with no data, on equipment chosen by somebody else.

Declining well is worth doing. A bid returned with a clear explanation and an alternative structure occasionally wins the work anyway, because the group has usually received four prices and no thinking.

What the first year should establish

Three things, and they decide the renewal.

An accurate equipment register per site, which was probably assumed at bid stage and is verified in the first cycle.

Reporting that arrives without being chased, per site and per piece of equipment, because that is what the facilities function is judged on internally.

And a reconciliation at nine months of what the program actually cost against what was bid, per site, so the renewal conversation is a discussion about evidence rather than a request.

The pain starts around your third or fourth technician, and a group program sits well above that. At forty sites the constraint is whether your records can produce a schedule, a report and a cost per site without somebody assembling them by hand every quarter.

Roopairs runs a product tour where you can see per-site equipment records and the job history behind each piece of equipment.

What service companies in the trade say

“We worked closely with the staff on setting up the system to meet our specific needs.” — Mel Rinehart, Rino Beverage Service

Also worth reading

• Pricing Emergency and After-Hours Calls
• What Preventive Maintenance Actually Prevents
• Roopairs the future of restaurant equipment software and parts distribution

Frequently asked questions

What does a restaurant group actually compare?

Coverage and capacity, reporting, and price. Coverage is the first filter and eliminates most bidders quietly, since a bid covering eighty percent of the portfolio is usually rejected without a conversation.

How should a multi-site program be priced?

Per site, by equipment count and travel, rather than as a single per-site figure. Survey a representative sample first, or price against a defined equipment count with a mechanism for sites that differ.

What makes the strongest bid document?

An equipment schedule listing the equipment per site with manufacturer and model. Most groups have no reliable equipment list for their own portfolio, and the party holding that register is difficult to replace.

What should be priced separately?

Planned visits, reactive attendance at a rate, out-of-hours cover as availability plus attendance, and reporting named as included. Bundling reactive hours into the annual figure produces the loss-making group contract.

What will procurement ask that an operator never does?

Documented insurance and certifications, evidenced response performance rather than asserted, an escalation route, and whether you can receive work through their facilities platform and close out in their format.

When should you decline?

When the geography does not support the price, and when inclusive reactive cover is required on equipment you have never seen. The second is an insurance product priced without data.