The Cost Blowout on the Set Menu
You are the head chef of a 60-seat café that runs a three-course set menu for $45 per person. The owner has asked you to review the menu because food cost has risen to 42% of revenue, against a target of 30%. The current menu is: pumpkin soup (cost $2.10), chicken parmigiana with chips and salad (cost $9.80), and sticky date pudding (cost $3.40). Average spend per cover is $45, and you serve 50 covers a day, six days a week. The owner does not want to raise the price. A supplier has offered a cheaper chicken breast at $8.50/kg versus the current $11.20/kg, but it is frozen and has a 15% yield loss compared with the fresh product.
1. Calculate the current food cost percentage and identify where the problem lies.
Read the worked answer
Current cost per cover
- Pumpkin soup: $2.10
- Chicken parmigiana: $9.80
- Sticky date pudding: $3.40
- Total food cost: $15.30
Food cost percentage
- $15.30 ÷ $45.00 = 34%
That is already above the 30% target, but the owner reports 42%. The gap means either the portion costs are understated or there is waste and over-portioning not captured in the recipe cost.
Where the problem lies
- The main is 64% of the food cost ($9.80 of $15.30). Chicken parmigiana is the cost driver.
- The gap between 34% and 42% suggests yield loss, over-portioning, or waste - not just ingredient price.
- The set menu structure means the soup and pudding are low-cost but fixed; the main must be controlled.
Reasoning: before changing suppliers, verify the actual portion cost by weighing what goes on the plate. A 42% actual against a 34% theoretical is an 8-point gap - that is where the money is.
2. Evaluate the cheaper chicken offer. Should you take it?
Read the worked answer
Comparison
Assume the recipe uses 200 g of chicken per serve.
- Current fresh: 0.200 kg × $11.20 = $2.24 per serve
- Frozen, with 15% yield loss: to get 200 g of usable meat you need 200 ÷ 0.85 = 235 g. Cost = 0.235 kg × $8.50 = $2.00 per serve
Saving: about $0.24 per serve, or $12 per day at 50 covers, or about $3,744 per year at six days a week.
But consider:
- Quality. Frozen chicken can be drier and less consistent. On a parmigiana, crumbed and sauced, the difference may be acceptable - but test it.
- Labour. Frozen product needs thawing, which adds handling and food safety risk. Thawing must be documented.
- Yield loss is real. The 15% loss means you buy more to get the same plate.
- Reliability. A cheaper supplier may not be consistent.
Recommendation: trial the frozen product on a small batch, compare yield and quality, and only switch if the saving holds after labour and waste. A $0.24 saving per serve will not close an 8-point gap on its own - the bigger issue is portion control and waste.
3. Propose a plan to bring food cost back to 30% without raising the price.
Read the worked answer
Target: 30% of $45 = $13.50 food cost per cover. Current theoretical is $15.30, so you need to remove $1.80 per cover - and close the gap to the 42% actual.
Actions
- Portion control. Weigh chicken, chips, and salad for one week. Over-portioning of the main is the likely cause of the 8-point gap. Standardise with scoops and scales.
- Waste audit. Track trim, spoilage, and staff meals for two weeks. Identify the top three waste sources.
- Menu engineering. Keep the soup and pudding (low cost, high margin). Rework the main: reduce chicken to 180 g, add a starch that costs less than chips, or offer a second main at a lower cost.
- Supplier review. Trial the frozen chicken as above, and quote the salad and chips lines.
- Yield testing. Check the actual yield of the chicken and vegetables - if the supplier's yield is lower than assumed, the recipe cost is wrong.
- Review pricing of extras. Drinks and sides carry better margins; a small push on those lifts overall revenue without touching the set price.
Reasoning: the 42% actual versus 34% theoretical is the biggest single opportunity. Fixing portion control and waste is faster and more reliable than switching suppliers, and it does not compromise quality.