NATHAN MARKS

Director, Oasis Investments Co. LLC

Allow me to bring a different perspective to the challenge Jonathan Merck faces. Even if I had the funds, I would not build the commissary at all. I would rework the business plan and include onsite food preparation capabilities. There are several reasons for this.

Most importantly, the food quality will suffer in the transportation to the final locations, given the time lag between the meat/food being prepared to when it actually gets plated for the customer. I get that having a commissary will reduce costs and allow food-stall-type shops to be used. If push comes to shove, have a commissary. But the food won’t taste like it should. It might not even be close.

Let’s look at the other things that could go wrong. Liability risk: from the commissary to the final location, you face multiple liability risk scenarios. One would be vehicle accidents, which could stop food service altogether for such a small operation. It’s hard enough to get around where I work in Texas when the roads are clear, but Merck will have to deal with snow and ice on the roads in Alberta. There are also food contamination risks. There are too many miles/space between the food-prep location and its final destination. From temperature control to trained or untrained staff, the risk for food contamination is high.

Going back to my initial argument, food taste and quality will affect the brand. If nothing else, the food served will not be consistent. Not being cooked on site and having your service dependent on how the food is transported means the food would not be at its highest quality when it reaches the customer, which could hurt/cripple branding.

I would start with two full-service locations and junk the commissary idea.