The Renovation Squeeze: Revenue, Guest Impact, and Cash Flow
You are GM of a 180-room select-service hotel with an annual RevPAR of $118 and an occupancy of 74%. Ownership has approved a phased lobby and corridor renovation budgeted at $2.4 million, but the contractor now says a 10-week closure of the main lobby and breakfast area is unavoidable. The hotel currently sells breakfast at $14 per occupied room, with a 62% capture rate and a 28% food cost. Corporate accounts represent 41% of room nights and two of them have service-level agreements requiring a functional breakfast area. The bank covenant requires a minimum EBITDA of $3.1 million, and the property is projected at $3.35 million before disruption. Your regional director wants a decision within five business days.
1. Estimate the financial and relationship exposure of the 10-week lobby closure, and state the decision you would take.
Read the worked answer
Start by quantifying the breakfast revenue at risk. Occupied rooms per year are 180 × 74% × 365 = 48,618. Breakfast covers are 48,618 × 62% = 30,143, giving annual revenue of about $422,000 and, at a 28% food cost, a contribution of roughly $304,000. Ten weeks is 19% of the year, so the direct contribution loss is about $58,000 if breakfast stops entirely. That alone does not breach the covenant, but the real risk is room revenue. Two corporate accounts with contractual breakfast obligations could invoke remedies or move their programs; 41% of room nights is the exposure that matters, not the $58,000.
My decision would be to approve the renovation but reject a full closure. I would negotiate a sequenced scope: keep a temporary breakfast service in a meeting room or adjacent outlet, or arrange a compensated off-site partner with vouchers, and secure written waivers or amended service levels from the two corporate accounts before demolition begins. I would also build a contingency of at least 3% of room revenue into the disruption plan and report weekly to ownership against the covenant. The judgement is that protecting $3.1 million of EBITDA and key accounts outweighs the contractor's convenience.
2. The contractor offers to compress the schedule from 10 weeks to 6 weeks for an additional $180,000. How would you evaluate that offer?
Read the worked answer
Compression is worth it only if the avoided disruption exceeds $180,000. On breakfast contribution alone, four avoided weeks save about $23,000, which is far short. The case has to be made on room revenue and relationship protection. If the longer closure risks losing even a modest share of the 41% corporate base, the avoided revenue can dwarf the premium. For example, losing 3% of annual room revenue at $118 RevPAR × 180 rooms × 365 days, roughly $7.75 million, is about $232,000, already above the premium.
I would test the offer against three conditions: a guaranteed liquidated-damages clause if the six weeks slip, evidence the contractor can actually staff the compressed schedule without quality loss, and confirmation that the compressed scope still allows a temporary breakfast operation. I would also check the funding source, since $180,000 against a $2.4 million budget is 7.5% and may need ownership approval. If the guarantees hold and the covenant margin is thin, I would accept; if the contractor will not accept schedule risk, I would decline and manage the longer disruption with service recovery.
3. A guest complains during the disruption that the hotel is 'not the product we booked.' What service-recovery approach would you authorize, and what limits would you set?
Read the worked answer
I would authorize a tiered recovery rather than a blanket refund. For a leisure guest who booked a room-only rate, I would offer a breakfast voucher at a partner café plus loyalty points, capped at a defined value per stay, because the room product itself was delivered. For a guest on a rate that included breakfast, the entitlement was sold, so I would refund the breakfast differential or provide an equivalent meal and a modest goodwill gesture. For a corporate traveler under an account with a breakfast clause, I would escalate to the account manager and document the incident, since repeated failures become contractual evidence.
Limits matter. I would set a per-night recovery cap, require manager approval above a threshold, and log every case so I can see whether complaints cluster around specific dates or room types. I would also brief the front desk to disclose the disruption at booking and check-in, because proactive disclosure reduces both the volume and the cost of recovery. The judgement is to protect the guest relationship without setting a precedent that any inconvenience earns a full refund.