1. Performance Based Studies Research Group www.pbsrg.com ASU Food Services Case Study

2. Best Value System Identification of Potential Best-Value Pre Planning and Risk Management Management by Risk Minimization PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3

3. Traditional Selection vs Best Value Selection Traditional (Management) Qualifications Program Interview Financial projections No linkage Best Value (Leadership) Past Performance Risk Assessment (don’t control) / Value Added Interview Financials (simplified and proven) Linkage into PP/QC and Risk Minimization

4. Keys to Selection Non-Technical –Risk focused –Minimize decision making –Data and binding information –No “dining program/menu” –No marketing Change –Release of details and control 60 page RFP (compared to 200 page for similar service) Intent not requirements –Differentiation – less is more –Process Logic replaces experience Minimal technical knowledge needed

5. RFP Selection Phase Pass/Fail Criteria –Executed Mandatory Proposal Certification –Willingness to execute –Pro Forma Financial Projections Scored Criteria –Risk Assessment and Value Added Plan (5pages) –Management Interview –Past Performance Information –Financial Compensation (1page)

6. Scored Criterion: Past Financial Data (vs Time) Total return (in dollars $) Total return (as a percentage % of sales) Retail revenue (in dollars $) Catering revenue (in dollars $) Voluntary meal plan revenue (in dollars) Total sales per labor hour Total enrolled student population Total number of meals per enrolled student Total number of retail meals per enrolled student Meal plan average missed meal percentage Customer satisfaction (for students) Average Delta Slope

7. Pre-Planning and Quality Control Phase

8. Financial Proposal Worksheet –Commissions offered to the University Meal plan sales Retail sales Subcontractor sales Catering sales Summer Conference Dining sales –Capital Investment Plan –Equipment Replacement Reserve –What is given here will become part of the final contract Scored Criterion: Financial Proposal

9. Pre-Planning and Quality Control Phase Financial Proposal Worksheet

10. Scored Criterion: Interview The ASU interviewed the key personnel. This included: –On-site General Manager –General Manager’s Immediate Supervisor –Regional Vice President –Director of Catering –Executive Chef Interviews were conducted individually

11. Pre-Planning and Quality Control Phase Selection Phase Results A financial difference of 62.3%

12. Best Value/PIPS System Identification of Potential Best-Value Pre Planning and Risk Management Management by Risk Minimization PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 This is the most critical phase of the process

13. Paradigm Shift Role change for the Vendor Becomes the leader Generates the “baseline plan” – sets optimal scope and schedule –Optimal for both the client and the vendor (win-win) Identifies, prioritizes, and minimizes all foreseeable risks Begins holding the client accountable for their impacts

14. Paradigm Shift Role change for the Vendor Risk Management Plan becomes a contractual document Measurement of deviation from the baseline plan is the weekly risk report Must learn the new paradigm to compete

15. Paradigm Shift Role change for the Client Must release control to the expert Becomes the facilitator –Identifies constraints & requirements –Provides need data to the vendor Provides any concerns/risks – to be addressed by the vendor Review Weekly and Monthly vendor reports

16. 16 Deliverables Pre-Award Period Deliverables Risk Management Plan The RMP should contain the following: 1.Scope Clear and detailed service scope (what is and what is not included) Detailed food services program 2.Uncontrolled Risks List List of risks Proposer does not control with plans to minimize 3.Identified Risks List List of all previously identified risks (by other proposers, user, and client) with plans to minimize 4.Client Action Item List 5.Agreed to performance metrics with baseline numbers 6.Weekly Risk Report 7.Finalized transition schedule 8.Metric reporting schedule (weekly and monthly) 9.Other: agreed to value adding options, original RAVA Plan, Interview minutes, etc…

17. Vendor Performs Risk Management RMP– became the contract –Focus on risk the vendor cannot control and their minimization –Seven (7) Primary Risks (26 sub/general risks) Bad Debt Meal Plan Counts Asbestos Abatement Construction Delays Loss of Sites Client change in start date Utility capacity –Risk minimization steps –Identification of when the risk reverts to client with level of impact

18. Example: Bad Debt Collection

19. Bad Debt Collection Result ASU not certain about debt collection Contract formed with two options (if and if not) Once impact shown, decision made to eliminate risk and have ASU collect debt Risk identified – risk eliminated

20. Pre-Planning and Quality Control Phase Helping Client Efficiency

21. Best Value System Identification of Potential Best-Value Pre Planning and Quality Control Management by Risk Minimization PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 This is the 2 nd most critical phase of the process

22. Performance Metrics Financial –Sales –Commissions –$/Labor-hour Performance –Risks –Student Satisfaction –Customer Satisfaction –Missed Meal Factor –Student Worker # –Sustainability (tonnage) Expansion –Catering $ –Retail $ –Voluntary $

24. Pre-Planning and Quality Control Phase

25. Year One Results: Information Environment –2008 results were generated despite… Memorial Union Fire – 80% of Tempe campus dining Unrealized Meal Plan Counts – Keystone to financial proposal Extreme difficulty in “finding” prior numbers –Results shown are normalized for available data from incumbent

26. A Successful Transition: Replacing a 52 year incumbent Aramark successfully transitioned the largest dining services in the history of Arizona State University in one month –Over 25 venues –Over 150 points of sale –600+ personnel –Over 18 different construction projects All construction finished on time and within budget 400 of 600 employees could not prove citizenship and had to be replaced in 30 days Raised average wage rate Aramark spent $350K to refund students who did not retain their remaining balances held by the incumbent

27. Issue: MU Fire Risk management plan defines actions Communication is minimized Vendor acts in best interest of the client without direction Aligned environment

28. Memorial Union (MU) Fire

29. 29 Thursday Afternoon - 11-1-07- Fire in the MU (3:11pm email sent to all ASU) Aramark employees first to see fire Aramark activates fire alarm Aramark lead the evacuation Aramark (John J and Jim J) go back in and find people not evacuating – get them out Aramark modifies all markets to accept meal plan cards (usually only dining areas) All meal plan students have access to additional food in a matter of hours Can the vendor act in the best interest of the client without a “directing” contract?

30. © PBSRG 2008 30 Thursday Night – 11-1-07 John J gets call at 9:00pm to access the building Gets two laptops and 600 paychecks needing to be distributed

31. © PBSRG 2008 31 Friday Morning – 11-2-07 MU closed Investigation switches from Tempe and ASU authorities to ATF Treated as a criminal investigation Rumors abound…

32. © PBSRG 2008 32

33. © PBSRG 2008 33

34. © PBSRG 2008 34 Friday Morning 11-2-2007 Friday Afternoon – 11-2-07 Aramark begins switch over to nearby gym (PE West) Aramark organizes resources Aramark begins making the calls and bringing the necessary items in (inventory lost at MU ($390,000) – all was replaced)

35. © PBSRG 2008 35 Saturday Morning – 11-3-07 MU employees allowed to get items left behind in building Gym begins being prepared for MU Contractors brought in Protective floor installed

36. © PBSRG 2008 36 Saturday Afternoon and all night GYM prep’d for electronics Tables/chairs/booths…etc cleaned and transferred over (Belfor) Kitchen ordered, refrigerator/freezers ordered Vendors contacted (papa johns, Chic-fil-a…)

37. © PBSRG 2008 37 Work takes place around the clock

38. © PBSRG 2008 38

39. © PBSRG 2008 39 Sunday Morning 11-4-07 Still transporting Still setting up Data hookups/cash register testing

40. © PBSRG 2008 40 Sunday Afternoon 11-4-2007 Arranging gym Stocking

41. © PBSRG 2008 41 Monday morning 11-5-07 Open for business at 9:00 am Radio station was brought in Serving “grab and go” plus full convenience store Can the client transfer risk and control to the vendor?

42. © PBSRG 2008 42

43. 43 Wed 11-7-07 Freezer/refrigerator delivered Services expanded in gym (more hot food, etc)

44. 44 Events cont. Tuesday 11-13-07 –Kitchen Set Up and serving food Tuesday –Kitchen shut down by ASU permitting Wed 11-14 -07 - Tues 11-20-07 (six days) no permit issued (then Thanksgiving) Wed 11-28-07 –Kitchen is up and running

45. 45 Summary Aramark had very fast response and resolution Did not cease operation and look for direction (no contract directives) Utilized their Risk Management Plan and proactively mitigated the risk, which was planned for before their service began Weekly report creates the documentation of how the risk is resolved –Shows value added and vendor performance

46. Issue: Boarder Count Inaccuracy Client is typically the biggest risk Vendor should define reality for the environment, adjust baseline plan when new dominant information arrives, track impacts to the service Reversion and relationships

47. Issue Summary Guaranteed boarder count incorrectly measured by ASU first semester of contract –An error of 26% not found until Dec of first year –RFP contained error in actual boarders at ASU as well Year 2 the contract was adjusted to account for ASU boarder shortfall –Additional Years and Additional Campuses –Commissions Increased –Capital Constant at Tempe Campus and some added for other campuses Year 2 & 3 confusion on the boarder count process and expectation of client and vendor –BV process not followed –Risk minimized by vendor innovations in efficiency and accounting Year 4 (FY11) ASU was facing tremendous shortfall which would result in a $6.3M penalty and a four year projected penalty of $28M, and a contract duration of $107M –Aramark adjusted contract to minimize risk for ASU

48. YR 1:ASU Boarder Count Inaccuracy ASU transfers $ to Aramark for mandatory meal plan dollars at the start of each semester –ASU transfers anticipated meal plan # to Aramark –Aramark sets purchasing, staffing, and operations –ASU collects the meal plan $ from students ASU has difficulty identifying the actual number of mandatory boarders –July 1, 2007: 6,331 –August 25, 2007: 6,575 –October 15, 2007: 6,733 –December 21, 2007: 5,221 19 days after the last class and 1250 students (26%) below payment # ASU claims overpayment to Aramark and request $1.8M back Despite not being contractually obligated to re-pay ASU for the “over-advanced” meal plan $, Aramark still returns $1.038M to ASU to maintain a favorable relationship

49. Spring has difficulty as well: –January 1, 2008: 5,504 –February 4, 2008: 5,504 –February 12, 2008: 5419 –April 3, 2008: 5,259 –May 1, 2008: 5,221 (1133 students below the number in the RFP) ASU claims overpayment to Aramark and requests $217K back The impact was ultimately agreed to be a wash as carried over from the fall Agree to amend the contract for YR2+ ASU Boarder Count Inaccuracy

50. What should have happened… Best Value operates off of the plan Year 1 –Not an operations issue, should have gone through contracts –Contract had terms in place for resolution, these were ignored –Plan should be followed: Penalty implemented Negotiations of deals for long term contracts in highly bureaucratic environments is not efficient –ASU request for contract amendment for future years Money, time, effort are the three variables

51. Issue: Engrained Stairway A relationship based example Risk is deviation from the baseline plan Weekly risk report tracks the deviation Without measurement, vendor is at risk

52. Stairway for Engrained Restaurant ASU wanted a “eco-restaurant” Part of contract plan After fire, President wanted “signature stairway” up to the restaurant –Signature stairways cost $1.4M ASU did not have $1.4M – wanted to use Aramark capital Non-revenue generating investment Aramark built the stairway – relationship based – but minimizing risk?

53. Amendment #5 Boarder Count Issues

54. Aggregate Amendment - History ASU not able to meet guaranteed minimum boarder counts Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 (first year of contract) ASU desires to expand contract to all four campuses –Aramark already working in good faith at Downtown location with major install construction underway Summer 2008 ASU and Aramark agree to set amendment to fix ASU boarder shortfall for future years and add other three campuses to contract –Increase in commissions –Increase in total capital – keep same ASU Tempe Campus original proposal amount Aramark can no longer shift capital from Tempe to Downtown unless contract amendment is signed –ASU cannot move fast enough to finalize amendment so settle on Letter of Intent –Letter of Intent Signed August 20 to all construction to continue and venue to open on time

55. Aggregate Amendment - History Letter of Intent clearly states: –FY09 – Tempe only boarder count requirement of 5815 –ASU agrees and signs Letter of Intent along with Aramark VP Contract amendment signed (Amend #5) on Oct 9 – intended as formalization of letter of intent Early Spring 2009 final Fall 2008 boarder numbers - Aramark realizes ASU did not meet the required minimum boarder counts – penalty is invoked per their understanding of the contract ASU objects to the penalty…claims not in shortfall but above the minimum…

56. Amendment #5 – Aggregate Boarder Count ASU states that the 5815 boarder count in the amendment is aggregate across all campuses, not just Tempe Contract wording disputed as not being clear by ASU Aramark disagrees, references Letter of Intent to show clarity ASU states: –A meeting was held with Aramark VP and ASU Assoc VP of Res Life that changed 5815 number from Tempe only to all Campuses –Letter of Intent is not a contract document Aramark does not remember the call referenced by ASU as to where they changed the original deal from the Letter of Intent

57. Amendment #5 – Disputed Language

58. Amendment #5 – References Table

59. What Happened Next Disagreement amounts to $521,000 ASU agrees first two years are Tempe only but there is no clear Tempe only number –Table is titled for all campuses, so no Tempe number is available Begin to look for a best value, win-win solution Takes four months to find and settle on a solution but one was found

60. What Happened Next Solution: First Transaction ASU takes $521,000, 0% interest loan from Aramark – Loan is received as un-invoked penalty of commissions of $521k (no money transfer) ASU makes scheduled payments back to Aramark for loan amount across 2 years In a separate transaction Aramark makes efficiency adjustments which result in savings of $333k, these savings are paid back to ASU across two years in schedule amounts ASU uses some of left over capital savings from Aramark efficiencies on a separate project to pay off remainder of $188k

61. Aramark to ASU Loan – NO MONEY TRANSFERS - Aramark invokes penalty, counts $521k as revenue ASU to Aramark Loan Payments Loan Payments from Excess Capital Aramark to ASU Payments from Operational Efficiencies

62. What should have happened… Held the Required Summary Meeting before signing This meeting was, by consensus of ASU Res Life and Aramark not held, at the opposition of ASU Procurement & PBSRG ASU claimed, ASU Res Life and Aramark held a separate, private meeting, which became the basis for much of the disagreement in the contract, explaining the terms Aramark had no recollection or information from this meeting For the lack of process application upfront, the risk was handled as well as it could have been

63. Arizona State University Dining Service: FY08 vs. FY09 (Overview)

64. Arizona State University Dining Service: FY08 vs. FY09 (Specifics)

65. Aramark Value Added Analysis: ASU Dining Service

66. YEAR 3 Performance Based

67. Performance Metrics – Combined ASU FY 2010

68. Now What?

69. Generated Solution Switch from student count to revenue based Hopefully align meal plan pricing Maintained Capital, reduced guaranteed commission With revenue model, still projected to meet expectations

71. Where we are now Close to completely outsourced Took time and education and diligence Operate from Weekly Risk Report (blank) Minimal Transactions / Minimal Communication Vendor is self managed, self reporting –Set metrics to meet different user needs

72. ASU Dining Performance Summary

73. Example of Future Risk If we don’t hit guaranteed revenue: – Not a operations issue – Stick to the plan, enforce the agreed to penalties – ASU to request additional contract amendment or considerations – If possible, Aramark to offer possibilities (if any) and agree to idea exchange – Entire resolution handled through contracts office

74. Questions???