Compare outsourced meal pricing, guarantees, retained costs, and exit terms with in-house payroll, ingredients, waste, facilities, equipment, and present-value TCO.
Defaults are not market averages. Replace them with like-for-like outsourced proposals and in-house records covering the same menu, days, meals, taxes, and client-paid scope.
Apply the same operating days, served meals, and horizon to both alternatives.
Separate the quoted meal price, client-paid scope, and minimum-guarantee settlement.
Keep fixed staffing, volume-driven labor, ingredients, and waste mutually exclusive.
Place compliance operations, refurbishment, exit, and residual value on the same cash-flow timeline.
Present-value decision
Outsourced option costs less
Present-value savings $613,647 · 11.22%
Outsourced PV TCO
$5,164,231
Current normal month $148,610
In-house PV TCO
$5,777,878
Current normal month $160,675
Current monthly cost gap
$12,065
Outsourced option costs less
Low, current, and high-volume directions: In-house option costs less / Outsourced option costs less / In-house option costs less. A minimum guarantee can create two crossovers.
| Metric | Outsourced | In-house |
|---|---|---|
| Initial cost | $15,000 | $350,000 |
| Current monthly fixed cost | $11,110 | $87,525 |
| Variable cost per meal above guarantee | $13 | $7 |
| Current monthly operating cost | $148,610 | $160,675 |
| Nominal TCO | $5,821,610 | $6,459,606 |
| Present-value TCO | $5,164,231 | $5,777,878 |
| Equivalent monthly PV cost | $161,164 | $180,315 |
| Lifecycle cost per served meal | $14 | $16 |
| Cost category | Outsourced nominal | Outsourced PV | In-house nominal | In-house PV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial transition and setup | $15,000 | $15,000 | $350,000 | $350,000 |
| Outsourced management fee | $112,378 | $99,825 | $0 | $0 |
| Outsourced served-meal cost | $5,168,101 | $4,583,028 | $0 | $0 |
| Minimum-guarantee shortfall | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| In-house labor | $0 | $0 | $2,794,414 | $2,482,029 |
| In-house ingredients | $0 | $0 | $2,153,375 | $1,909,595 |
| In-house ingredient loss | $0 | $0 | $107,669 | $95,480 |
| Per-meal consumables and client cost | $215,338 | $190,959 | $430,675 | $381,919 |
| Utilities | $168,566 | $149,738 | $299,674 | $266,201 |
| Facility and equipment | $74,918 | $66,550 | $187,296 | $166,376 |
| Internal oversight | $30,342 | $26,953 | $75,855 | $67,382 |
| Other recurring cost | $29,967 | $26,620 | $93,648 | $83,188 |
| In-house refurbishment | $0 | $0 | $30,000 | $25,720 |
| Exit cost and residual value | $7,000 | $5,557 | -$63,000 | -$50,011 |
| Scenario | Month-one meals/day | Outsourced PV | In-house PV | Decision | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 500 | $5,164,231 | $5,777,878 | Outsourced option costs less | $613,647 |
| Low volume: 80% | 400 | $4,496,100 | $5,269,926 | Outsourced option costs less | $773,826 |
| High volume: 120% | 600 | $6,119,029 | $6,285,831 | Cost result is close | $166,802 |
| Outsourced fee and meal price +10% | 500 | $5,632,517 | $5,777,878 | Cost result is close | $145,362 |
| In-house food and labor +10% | 500 | $5,164,231 | $6,226,589 | Outsourced option costs less | $1,062,357 |
| Year | Period | Served meals | Billable equivalents | Outsourced nominal | In-house nominal | Outsourced cumulative PV | In-house cumulative PV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1–12 | 133,805.31 | 133,805.31 | $1,805,886 | $1,940,105 | $1,747,274 | $2,211,186 |
| 2 | 13–24 | 137,819.47 | 137,819.47 | $1,930,306 | $2,075,471 | $3,461,738 | $4,053,816 |
| 3 | 25–36 | 141,954.06 | 141,954.06 | $2,070,418 | $2,094,029 | $5,164,231 | $5,777,878 |
First align menu scope, served meals, operating days, taxes, employee contributions, utilities, and facility responsibility. The result does not determine registration, staffing, hygiene, facility, insurance, incident-liability, or contract compliance.
Sources checked 2026-08-03. NIST HB 135e2022 supports only the present-value method. Korea Food Sanitation Act MST 277149, Enforcement Decree MST 278067, Enforcement Rule MST 282565, and Annex 25 serial 17947695 define review boundaries for institutional and outsourced foodservice; they do not provide prices, staffing, or an automatic compliance decision.
An employee cafeteria decision is broader than a comparison between a vendor's price per meal and an in-house ingredient budget.
An outsourced contract may also contain a guaranteed meal volume, a shortfall charge, a management fee, client-paid supplies, utilities, facilities, internal oversight, transition work, and exit obligations.
An in-house operation carries loaded kitchen and service payroll, ingredients, waste, consumables, utilities, hygiene controls, equipment, periodic refurbishment, management time, exit cost, and possible residual value.
This calculator places both alternatives on the same monthly meal path and analysis horizon.
It reports current monthly operating cost, nominal lifecycle cost, present-value TCO, equivalent monthly cost, cost per served meal, operating and horizon break-even volumes, a vendor meal-price ceiling, and an in-house payroll threshold.
Every default is an editable illustration in the selected currency, not a market quote, staffing standard, or recommendation to outsource or self-operate.
Use the same operating days, meals served, menu and nutrition standard, service hours, number of service points, sanitation scope, utilities boundary, tax basis, and corporate overhead policy on both sides.
If an outsourced quote includes work that the company would otherwise perform, place that work inside the in-house alternative as well.
If the company continues to pay for utilities, facilities, supplies, or contract administration after outsourcing, keep those retained costs in the outsourced alternative.
| Cost boundary | Outsourced input | In-house input | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transition and setup | Mobilization, menu transition, data transfer, and one-time client work | Kitchen, serving line, ventilation, equipment, recruiting, and opening inventory | Vendor proposal, construction quote, equipment list, and transition plan |
| Meal-driven cost | Quoted meal price, client-paid items, and any shortfall charge | Ingredients, waste, disposables, utilities, and variable labor per meal | Invoices, meal counts, recipes, purchase history, waste log, and time study |
| Monthly fixed cost | Management fee, utilities, facilities, oversight, and other retained costs | Loaded payroll, utilities, facilities, oversight, hygiene, and other overhead | Payroll ledger, benefit assumptions, work logs, utility bills, and contracts |
| Lifecycle events | Contract exit, inventory transfer, restoration, and closeout support | Refurbishment, equipment replacement, disposal, exit cost, and residual value | Termination clauses, asset register, maintenance plan, and resale quote |
Enter employer taxes and benefits inside loaded payroll, and enter the economic value of internal management time only once.
Use either tax-inclusive or tax-exclusive prices throughout.
Keep refundable deposits, depreciation, financing structure, and income-tax effects outside this operating model unless the same policy is applied consistently to both alternatives.
Reconcile cafeteria point-of-sale records, meal tickets, access-control counts, and vendor invoices by operating day.
Remove exceptional events and test separate assumptions for shifts, remote-work days, holidays, and seasonal shutdowns.
Enter monthly meal growth only when a workforce or participation plan supports it.
Separate the price per actual meal from the guaranteed daily volume and shortfall charge.
Confirm whether management, utilities, facilities, disposables, equipment, repairs, data, transition, and exit are included or charged to the client.
Convert every recurring item to a monthly amount on the same basis.
Loaded payroll should include wages, employer payroll charges, benefits, paid leave, overtime, relief coverage, training, and recruiting costs supported by company policy.
Base ingredients on recipes, purchase invoices, serving counts, and inventory movements.
Enter waste as a percentage of ingredient purchases so that edible loss, overproduction, spoilage, and trimming assumptions remain visible.
Include only incremental setup costs required for the decision, such as cooking, refrigeration, ventilation, dishwashing, serving, safety, and point-of-sale equipment.
Add a refurbishment month and amount when a material replacement is expected inside the horizon.
Subtract residual value only when a documented resale or reusable value is realistically recoverable at the end.
Monthly meals = operating days × meals served per day.
Guaranteed meals = operating days × guaranteed meals per day.
Outsourced meal cost = actual meals × quoted meal price.
Shortfall cost = max(guaranteed meals − actual meals, 0) × shortfall charge.
Outsourced monthly cost = meal cost + shortfall + management + client-paid supplies + utilities + facilities + internal oversight + other retained cost.
In-house ingredient cost = actual meals × ingredient cost per meal × (1 + waste rate).
In-house monthly cost = loaded payroll + variable labor + ingredient cost + consumables + utilities + facilities + internal oversight + other overhead.
Month one starts with the selected daily meal volume, and later months apply the annual meal-growth assumption on a monthly compounded basis.
Each alternative applies its own annual recurring-cost growth assumption.
Setup cost is paid at the beginning, monthly cash flows are discounted to the valuation date, refurbishment is added in its selected month, and exit cost or residual value is included at the end of the horizon.
Monthly discount rate = (1 + annual discount rate)1/12 − 1.
Present value of month t cost = cash flow in month t ÷ (1 + monthly discount rate)t.
Present-value TCO = setup cost + discounted monthly costs + discounted lifecycle events.
Equivalent monthly cost converts present-value TCO into a level monthly annuity over the selected horizon.
The time-value-of-money structure follows the lifecycle-cost approach described in NIST Handbook 135, 2022 edition; the cafeteria assumptions themselves are user inputs.
The English default uses 500 meals per operating day, 22 operating days per month, a 36-month horizon, 3% annual meal growth, and an 8% annual discount rate.
It is deliberately independent from the Korean-won example and is intended only to show how the model behaves.
| Result | Outsourced | In-house |
|---|---|---|
| Current monthly fixed cost | $11,110 | $87,525 |
| Current variable cost per meal | $12.50 | $6.65 |
| Current monthly operating cost | $148,610 | $160,675 |
| 36-month nominal TCO | $5,821,610 | $6,459,606 |
| 36-month present-value TCO | $5,164,231 | $5,777,878 |
| Equivalent monthly cost | $161,164 | $180,315 |
| Present-value cost per served meal | $14.08 | $15.62 |
Under these inputs, outsourcing has the lower present-value TCO by about $613,647, or roughly 11.2% relative to the in-house alternative.
The result changes when actual demand, the guaranteed volume, meal price, loaded payroll, ingredient cost, retained facilities, refurbishment, or exit terms change.
Replace every default with current proposals and measured operating evidence before making a decision.
The current operating break-even holds month-one prices and fixed costs constant, then searches the permitted daily meal range for equal monthly cost.
The horizon break-even reruns the full discounted lifecycle model at alternative starting volumes, including growth, setup, refurbishment, exit, and residual value.
The default dollar case produces operating break-even points near 313 and 594 meals per day, and horizon break-even points near 235 and 637 meals per day.
Below the vendor guarantee, unserved guaranteed meals can create a shortfall charge.
Above the guarantee, that charge disappears and the outsourced cost follows the quoted meal price.
Because the slope changes at the guarantee, the outsourced and in-house curves can cross on both sides.
The default vendor meal-price ceiling is about $13.61 per meal when all other assumptions remain fixed.
The default in-house loaded-payroll threshold is about $51,558 per month.
These are mathematical indifference points, not target bids or staffing recommendations.
A missing break-even result does not mean the calculation failed.
It means the two cost curves do not cross inside the tested daily meal range, so one alternative remains lower throughout that range.
Expand the range only when the resulting meal volume is operationally credible.
A single forecast creates false precision when attendance, food inflation, wages, and vendor terms can move independently.
The result panel therefore recalculates a fixed set of transparent cases: meal volume 20% lower and higher, vendor meal price 10% higher, in-house ingredient cost 10% higher, and in-house loaded payroll 10% higher.
Score food quality, nutrition, menu flexibility, employee experience, allergen controls, incident response, business continuity, workforce stability, data access, and governance separately.
A lower TCO option may still be unsuitable if it cannot meet mandatory service, safety, resilience, or employee-welfare requirements.
This English page can model any currency, but the compliance references below describe the Korean legal context verified on August 3, 2026.
They define review boundaries and do not automatically decide whether a particular facility is reportable, compliant, or exempt.
| Official source | Verified provision | Decision use |
|---|---|---|
| Food Sanitation Act, law ID 001805, master serial 277149 | Article 2 defines group meal facilities; Article 88 addresses reporting, hygiene duties, retained samples, and facilities. | Confirm the facility category, reporting path, operating duties, and who bears each compliance cost. |
| Enforcement Decree, law ID 004097, master serial 278067 | Article 2 uses a threshold of at least 50 persons served at one time; Article 21 describes outsourced foodservice performed under contract in the operator's facility. | Review whether the site and contract fall within the relevant definitions; do not infer status from annual meal volume alone. |
| Enforcement Rule, law ID 007634, master serial 282565 | Articles 94–96 cover reporting and changes, retained samples at no more than −18°C, and facility standards; Annex 25 has serial 17947695. | Allocate refrigeration, records, hygiene controls, facilities, inspections, training, and contract evidence to the responsible party. |
The cited Act and Decree records were current with an October 1, 2025 effective date when checked.
The cited Enforcement Rule record was promulgated January 2, 2026 and effective March 1, 2026 when checked.
Laws, local procedures, contracts, and official interpretations can change, so verify the current official text and obtain qualified advice before implementation.
No. A minimum guarantee, management fee, client-paid supplies, utilities, facilities, internal oversight, transition cost, and exit cost can materially change the result. Compare the entire cost boundary, not one quoted line.
The outsourced shortfall charge can make its cost slope different below the guaranteed volume and above it. A piecewise cost curve may therefore cross the in-house curve once on each side of the guarantee.
A fully refundable deposit is normally not an operating cost. If tying up cash is material, evaluate its financing or opportunity cost separately and include only the portion that is genuinely nonrecoverable.
Use a consistent basis for both options. Enter both on a tax-inclusive basis or both on a tax-exclusive basis, and ask accounting advisers how recoverable tax, depreciation, leases, and financing should be treated.
No. It is the monthly loaded payroll amount that would equalize present-value TCO while other inputs remain fixed. It is a decision threshold, not a wage, headcount, or productivity recommendation.
No. The cited Korean provisions identify review boundaries for group meal facilities and outsourced foodservice. Facility-specific reporting, operator duties, food-safety controls, labor obligations, taxes, insurance, and contract terms require separate professional review.
Official provisions support compliance review boundaries only.
Default financial values, meal volumes, growth rates, and cost assumptions are illustrative and are not taken from those legal sources.
Replace the illustration with your meal records, vendor proposal, loaded payroll, ingredient purchases, facility costs, lifecycle plan, and discount rate.
Use the TCO gap, multiple break-even points, price ceiling, payroll threshold, and sensitivity cases to prepare better questions before procurement or investment approval.