Compare Catering Quotes by Scope, Not the Headline Per-Person Figure

Two catering quotes can show the same number of guests and still describe different events. One may include a service captain, glassware and clearing; another may assume the venue supplies them. A headline per-person figure becomes meaningful only after those assumptions are aligned.

Create a comparison sheet before negotiating. The purpose is not to force every supplier into an identical business model, but to understand what each offer delivers and what you would need to arrange separately. A thoughtful higher quote may include essential work that a lower figure leaves unpriced.

📋 Normalise the scope

Cater Directly’s service guide explicitly includes labour, rentals, delivery, setup, pickup, overtime and venue time in a complete comparison. That is a more useful frame than assuming buffet or plated service carries a universal price advantage.

Worked comparison: meal minimums and paid team-hours

Assume a fictional meal for 60 adults, eight children and four working suppliers. Both proposals cover the same agreed food, service window and delivery duties. Quote A charges 50 units per adult, 25 per child and 30 per supplier meal. Quote B charges 45 per guest meal, including children, with a minimum billable guest count of 70; its four supplier meals cost 30 each outside that minimum. These invented terms illustrate a calculation, not typical prices or universal billing rules.

There are 68 guest meals and four supplier meals, or 72 prepared meals. B’s minimum charges for 70 guest meals, two more than the guest attendance; those two billing units are not extra invited people. Assume both confirm the same tax basis and no other compulsory fees here. If either assumption is unresolved, do not call the comparison complete.

A contains 35 paid team-hours and B contains 36. Neither count proves adequate staffing: ask which roles work when, whether setup and clearing fit, and who covers the kitchen/service interface. A lower per-guest figure has produced no total saving in this example. For a general non-catering method, see the vendor scope comparison with a photography example.

In your own sheet, mark a missing cost as “not yet quoted,” never zero. Record the exact minimum, amendment cutoff, age/meal definitions, included equipment and overtime basis. Have the venue and caterer confirm who supplies each required item before relying on an inclusive label.

Compare in an orderly sequence

1. Give suppliers the same event brief, guest count and venue information.
2. List the service period, setup access and breakdown deadline.
3. Separate included, excluded and unresolved items.
4. Ask the venue to identify equipment or staffing it already provides.
5. Recalculate comparable totals only after gaps are priced.
6. Review payment, change, cancellation and overtime terms.
7. Record the final scope as part of the agreement.

Do not compare staffing by headcount alone. A named captain, cooks, servers and clearing staff perform different jobs. Ask what each team will do and how the proposed hours align with your schedule. Avoid replacing a supplier’s operational assessment with a generic staffing ratio.

Check interfaces between suppliers

Someone must own tasks that sit between contracts: moving tables, receiving ice, taking away rubbish or washing hired glassware. If both suppliers assume the other will do it, the task remains yours. Confirm access to kitchens, water, power and loading areas rather than assuming the venue hire includes unrestricted use.

For dietary requirements, compare the actual communication and service process, not merely whether a quote says ‘special diets accommodated.’ Ask who reviews requests, what the limitations are and how the correct meal reaches the guest. Operational food-safety and cross-contact decisions remain with the caterer.

The takeaway is to compare complete responsibilities as well as complete totals. Once scope is aligned, you can choose based on confidence, food, service and terms rather than a misleading number at the top of a proposal.