Prime Cost Review for Full-Service Restaurant Groups

Full-service operations combine reservations, walk-ins, kitchen preparation, table service and a close that may continue after the last guest leaves. A useful cost review should reflect that sequence rather than treating the whole day as one average.

Start with the question: which location and part of service needs a closer look, and what evidence would explain the difference?

Marty focuses on U.S. restaurant groups with 5–50 locations and $10M–$100M in revenue. Full-service groups can use the review below to assess whether their unresolved work needs a managed operating routine.

Define the prime-cost comparison

For this operating review, use a consistent measure of labor plus cost of goods sold, divided by the same sales base when expressing it as a percentage. See the Restaurant365 prime-cost formula. Have accounting confirm the included accounts. Do not compare one location's hourly wages with another location's fully loaded labor expense.

Food purchasing is not automatically the same as consumption during service. Stock counts, receiving and inventory movements matter when interpreting cost. Apicbase's documentation illustrates the distinction between theoretical and actual CoGS and the importance of reliable inputs. Apicbase CoGS guidance.

Follow the service sequence

Before service: compare expected demand with preparation and staffing plans. Include the work needed before guests arrive.

During service: check the information available to the responsible manager. A reservation shortfall needs context from walk-ins, existing tables and remaining tasks before any staffing change.

At close: preserve void, discount and comp reasons; reconcile cash movements; note issues that need follow-up.

After service: compare actual hours, sales and relevant cost records against the plan. Determine which differences were justified and which need a change.

Inspect patterns without accusing people

Repeated corrections on the same menu item may reflect button design, training or preparation trouble. A labor overrun may reflect demand or an unrealistic close plan. A deposit difference may be timing or missing documentation.

The point of combining records is to narrow the explanation, not to make a confident claim before the records support it.

Make the leadership conversation concrete

For a hypothetical Location A, a review may begin with a recurring late close. Collect the schedule, actual hours and manager notes. Establish whether the same tasks repeatedly exceed the allowed time. Then assign the person who will test a process change and decide what evidence will show improvement.

This is an example of an investigation, not a customer result or promise of savings.

Illustrative full-service prime-cost review

Hypothetical weekly inputs, not benchmarks or customer outcomes: sales of $100,000, consistently defined labor of $30,000 and CoGS of $28,000 give prime cost of $58,000, or 58% of the same sales base. A labor-only percentage would answer a different question.

If a supplier invoice or closing count is missing, label the ratio provisional. Do not rank locations on that incomplete number. Assign the labor and inventory actions separately and verify each in the next comparable period; a group percentage alone cannot show which action worked.

Use the food-cost variance checklist when counts and invoices disagree. Compare the process with source-backed review findings, where missing records are separated from actual recovery.

Coordinate the prime-cost actions

Marty is a managed profit-control layer: Find → Assign → Follow up → Verify. The paid Cash Recovery Plan establishes what to watch first, with evidence, owners, actions and a 30-day plan. Delivery is seven business days after required access is complete; read-only access and the flat fee are confirmed first.

Optional Managed Profit Control continues the agreed checks, manager alerts, follow-up, escalation and verification. Start the Cash Recovery Plan.