Fast-casual chains, full-service restaurant groups, and hospitality operators run on thin margins and high vendor complexity — broadline distributors, beverage programs, payment processors, delivery platforms, linen and uniform services, waste haulers. The leakage is structural and rarely surfaces in monthly P&L review.
Multi-unit restaurant economics run on COGS percentages, prime cost ratios, and unit-level P&L discipline. That discipline is well-suited to catching unit-level operational variance — over-portioning, theft, waste — but structurally blind to contract-level leakage that compounds at the corporate AP layer.
Broadline distributor contracts (Sysco, US Foods, Performance Food Group, US Foodservice) are dense with deviated pricing, proprietary brand commitments, earned-income rebates, and category-mix incentives. Reconciliation against these contract terms at the invoice line level is a forensic exercise, not a finance-team exercise. Beverage program contracts (Coca-Cola, Pepsi) carry rebate funding, marketing allowances, and equipment placement credits that frequently go unrealized.
Payment processing, delivery platform commissions, and ancillary services (linen, uniforms, waste, grease, pest control) add additional vendor layers each with their own pricing drift. A forensic audit operates against the full vendor base, reconciling at the contract-line level rather than the unit-level P&L.
Sysco, US Foods, Performance Food Group, and regional broadline distributors operate complex earned-income rebate structures tied to proprietary brand percentages, total purchase volume, category mix, and contract-year reset cycles. Multi-unit operators commonly leak rebates where proprietary brand commitments are not enforced at the menu level, where category mix drifts below contract thresholds, or where deviated pricing is not applied uniformly across locations.
Coca-Cola and Pepsi contracts include volume-based rebate funding, marketing allowances, equipment placement credits, and signing bonuses that are funded against multi-year commitments. Realization rates fall sharply when operators do not actively reconcile against the funding schedule, when units close or relocate, or when sub-brand mix shifts.
Interchange-plus pricing not enforced; downgrades from negotiated qualified rates to mid-qualified or non-qualified at higher cost; PCI compliance fees, technology surcharges, and chargeback fees added outside contract terms. Common variance against negotiated processor agreement: 4% to 9% of total processing fees.
DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub commission charges audited for: stated vs invoiced commission rate variance, marketing fee additions, tax remittance errors, refund chargeback alignment with merchant agreement terms, tip pass-through, and promotional-period commission adjustments. Common recovery: 2% to 5% of platform GMV.
Cintas, ARAMARK, UniFirst, Alsco contracts auto-renewing at escalated prices; lost-item charges billed above contract minimums; environmental fees and fuel surcharges escalating beyond contractual caps; mat services billed at units that have closed or relocated. Often a high-recovery category relative to spend size.
Waste hauling (Waste Management, Republic Services, regional haulers) and grease collection contracts containing fuel surcharges, environmental fees, and container fees that escalate without notice. Pest control (Ecolab, Orkin, Terminix), HVAC service contracts, and water treatment commonly add 1% to 3% of recoverable leakage when reconciled.
Ranges drawn from public industry benchmarks (KPMG Supplier Management commentary on contractual leakage; Restaurant Finance & Development Conference operational benchmarks; National Restaurant Association cost reporting). Specific recovery figures depend on unit count, day-part mix, off-premise share, and procurement maturity.
Illustrative scope and structure. Specific findings vary by operator and are confidential to the engagement.
Findings are delivered as a confidential dossier with line-item evidence, vendor-by-vendor recovery prioritization, and a 90-day implementation roadmap. The dossier supports either direct recovery negotiation by the operator's finance team or a pass-through to the broadline distributor's national account team for reconciliation.
For Operating Partners & Advisors →Across multi-unit US restaurant and hospitality operators, forensic vendor audits typically surface recoverable leakage in the 4% to 11% range of audited vendor spend. The upper end concentrates in groups with active delivery platform exposure and complex beverage program rebate structures.
Broadline food distributor rebates are reconciled against contract tier thresholds, purchase mix categories, and distributor-issued earned-income statements. Variances commonly surface where purchase mix was below committed proprietary brand percentages, where private-label substitution adjustments were not applied, or where deviated pricing was not enforced across all locations.
Yes. DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub commission charges are commonly audited for: stated vs invoiced commission rate variance, marketing fee additions outside contract terms, tax remittance errors, refund chargebacks not aligned with merchant agreements, and tip pass-through errors. Audits frequently identify 2% to 5% of platform GMV as recoverable.
Scope is set at engagement-letter stage. Most engagements focus on corporate-owned locations where the operator controls vendor selection and invoicing. Franchisee locations are included only where the franchisor holds enterprise contracts that flow through to franchisee operations, with appropriate documentation of contractual standing.
For broader questions about scope, methodology, and engagement structure, see the full Answers page.