Hotel Online  Special Report

Performance Clauses Essential In
Hotel Management Contract

CANADIAN LODGING OUTLOOK
October 2002 Year to date


The Canadian Lodging Outlook is a joint monthly publication 
of Smith Travel Research and HVS International, 
Vancouver and Toronto, Canada

 
By: Stephen Rushmore - MAI, CHA, CRE, president and founder of HVS International

When you turn the keys of your hotel over to a management company, you expect the property will be competently operated. I define competence as the ability to maximize long-term revenues while minimizing long-term expenses. While most hotel management companies are able to operate in accordance with this definition, what do you do when your operator does not? Hopefully, you have included one or more performance clauses within the management contract, which will enable you to terminate the operator and find someone who will do a better job.

Most hotel management companies will not voluntarily include a performance clause within their "standard" contracts. This provision usually comes at the insistence of the owner and generally requires intensive negotiations to structure a workable arrangement where by the hotel owner is protected from an incompetent operator, and the management company has a performance standard that is fair and related to events and circumstances that are controllable. Hotel management contract performance clauses typically contain four components: the criteria standard; an implementation period; ability for operator to cure; and exceptions to termination.

There are a number of criteria utilized to structure a management company's performance clause. The simplest and what seems to have become the most popular is the RevPAR (revenue per available room) standard. This clause identifies several nearby hotels comparable to the subject property. The RevPAR for this comparable set is determined periodically and compared to the RevPAR of the subject property in the form of a RevPAR yield (the RevPAR of the subject property divided by the RevPAR of the comparable set). Should this RevPAR yield fall below some stipulated level, a default occurs that could lead to a termination by the owner. The stipulated RevPAR yield used as the standard often depends on the current RevPAR of the comparable set when the contract is negotiated, but most well-run hotels should achieve a RevPAR yield of 100%.

While the RevPAR standard is simple to compute, I generally do not recommend using it because it incentivizes the operator to focus only on the revenue line and ignore the total cost of achieving a predetermined level of revenue. An unscrupulous operator could artificially inflate RevPAR by overspending in areas such as marketing, service and amenities.

A more relevant standard is to define a level of profitability (net income) that the operator must achieve not to go into default. Usually, the owner wants this standard to be an amount sufficient to cover the existing debt service plus a return on equity. Operators tend to insist on a standard that would include only expenses they have direct control over and focus on the operating profit line. In either case, a predetermined monetary amount needs to be agreed upon and stipulated in the contract. This amount may sometimes be adjusted for inflation over the term of the agreement--but usually not.

Other standards that I have seen include a defined net income percentage of total revenue. The object of this standard is to have an operator maintain a certain level of profitability irrespective of the length of the contract. This eliminates the need to adjust the previous standard for inflation. However, the operator can sometimes manipulate a defined profit percentage by, for example, decreasing the amount of food and beverage sales (this will generally increase the bottom line profit percentage). 

If you want your operator to maintain a certain quality standard for the product and the service, I have seen performance clauses tied to a specified rating from a government rating department or private rating service such as Mobile or AAA.

Once the standard is agreed upon, most operators will insist on an implementation period. Usually, hotel management companies are given one to three years to achieve the specified standard after taking over the operation of the property. For a new hotel, this accounts for the normal buildup period, and for an existing hotel, it enables the operator to implement new systems and procedures. In addition, a default period of two to three years is normal so the operator would not be terminated for one poor performance year.

Some contracts, particularly those that define a level of profitability, contain provisions allowing the operator to cure the default by either giving or lending the owner sufficient funds to make up the difference between the stipulated level of net income defined in the standards and the actual level. This allows hotel management companies to avoid a default in the event they just missed meeting the standard.

While performance standards can be very specific, there should be a list of exceptions that allow an operator to perform below a standard without default in the event there are circumstances beyond the operator's control. This is what attorneys call force majure and includes things like floods, hurricanes, war and strikes. Performance exceptions need to be defined carefully. Usually, having the default period described above provides the operator sufficient time to recover from an unusual event and therefore reduces the need for a long list of exceptions.

There is nothing worse than being stuck with an under-performing hotel that easily could be turned around with competent management. Performance clauses should always be included in a hotel management contract. In fact, I often suggest that an owner give the operator a slightly higher fee as a trade off for allowing a more restrictive performance standard.


Canadian Lodging Outlook
HVS International - Canada
October 2002 Year-to-Date


October 2002 Year-to-Date  Number of Rooms Occupancy Rate %
2002
Occupancy Rate %
2001
Average Room Rate $ 2002 Average Room Rate $ 2001 RevPAR $ 2002 RevPAR $ 2001 Room Supply % Change Room Demand % Change
Nova Scotia Area 1,476 62.3% 63.2% $82.99 $82.53 $51.70 $52.16 0.2% -1.3%
Halifax, NS 1,773 74.7% 76.0% $118.32 $119.85 $88.39 $91.09 4.8% 3.1%
Montreal, QC 14,558 69.1% 68.8% $140.47 $134.20 $97.06 $92.33 1.9% 2.4%
QuebecCity, QC 3,804 69.7% 69.7% $141.41 $135.19 $98.56 $94.23 1.7% 1.6%
Quebec Area 3,151 60.3% 58.5% $91.17 $86.24 $54.98 $50.45 0.5% 3.6%
Toronto Downtown 10,777 69.4% 70.7% $167.07 $169.79 $115.95 $120.04 0.0% -1.9%
Toronto North/East 4,016 60.5% 63.7% $106.30 $109.19 $64.31 $69.55 -2.4% -7.3%
Toronto Airport/West 3,769 68.3% 72.0% $112.97 $111.62 $77.16 $80.37 0.1% -5.1%
Ottawa, ON 7,332 65.9% 70.0% $126.35 $128.33 $83.26 $89.83 2.6% -3.4%
Ontario East 3,834 59.6% 59.6% $94.41 $91.19 $56.27 $54.35 0.0% 0.0%
Ontario Southwest 8,159 61.8% 60.5% $96.26 $95.11 $59.49 $57.54 0.7% 2.7%
Ontario North 4,998 60.4% 61.1% $100.50 $97.36 $60.70 $59.49 0.4% -0.7%
Niagara Falls, ON 6,912 62.5% 60.6% $128.40 $125.03 $80.25 $75.77 0.6% 3.9%
Ontario Central 12,971 64.2% 68.1% $107.62 $105.63 $69.09 $71.93 4.3% -1.6%
Winnipeg, MB 3,328 62.2% 63.6% $91.19 $91.80 $56.72 $58.38 4.2% 2.0%
Regina/Saskatoon, SK 3,360 60.6% 62.9% $83.93 $81.04 $50.86 $50.97 0.9% -2.7%
Calgary, AB 6,575 67.7% 67.2% $115.99 $114.62 $78.53 $77.02 0.5% 1.3%
Edmonton, AB 5,324 75.6% 67.4% $90.62 $97.64 $68.51 $65.81 0.0% 12.2%
Alberta Area 6,206 60.2% 65.3% $89.53 $85.27 $53.90 $55.68 0.7% -7.2%
Mountain Regions, AB 2,509 70.7% 70.0% $230.64 $220.54 $163.06 $154.38 -3.6% -2.8%
Vancouver, BC 11,271 66.2% 66.5% $138.63 $137.93 $91.77 $91.72 1.9% 1.5%
British Columbia Area 4,880 54.6% 54.8% $88.60 $88.79 $48.38 $48.66 0.7% 0.3%
Victoria, BC 2,797 62.8% 62.9% $128.57 $121.52 $80.74 $76.44 0.2% 0.0%
Provinces
Alberta 20,583 67.9% 67.1% $115.16 $116.44 $78.19 $78.13 -0.1% 1.0%
British Columbia 21,696 62.2% 62.5% $132.72 $131.60 $82.55 $82.25 1.0% 0.4%
Manitoba 3,714 61.9% 63.2% $90.21 $90.56 $55.84 $57.23 3.0% 0.9%
New Brunswick 2,660 65.2% 65.1% $95.64 $91.16 $62.36 $59.35 0.2% 0.4%
Newfoundland 1,245 69.1% 69.7% $107.01 $99.66 $73.94 $69.46 0.0% -1.0%
Nova Scotia 3,249 69.8% 71.2% $105.80 $107.41 $73.85 $76.48 1.5% -0.5%
Northwest Territories INS INS INS INS INS INS INS INS INS
Ontario 62,329 64.4% 66.1% $121.84 $121.99 $78.46 $80.64 1.0% -1.5%
Prince Edward Island 575 55.8% 56.1% $102.11 $96.27 $56.98 $54.01 0.0% -0.5%
Quebec 21,983 67.6% 67.1% $133.47 $127.33 $90.23 $85.44 1.3% 2.0%
Saskatchewan 4,854 57.2% 59.1% $78.67 $76.04 $45.00 $44.94 0.6% -2.6%
Yukon Territory 274 46.1% 51.5% $82.51 $87.02 $38.04 $44.82 0.0% -10.6%
Canada 143,162 61.5% 63.1% $110.32 $108.71 $67.85 $68.60 0.9% -1.6%
© Smith Travel Research, 2002. Reproduction or quotation in whole or in part without permission is forbidden. *INS - Insufficient Data


###

Contact:
Kimberley Tyls
HVS International 
4235 Prospect Road
North Vancouver, BC V7N 3L6
(604) 988-9743, ext. 21
[email protected]
www.hvsinternational.com

Also See Separating the Hotel Looker From the Hotel Buyer / Stephen Rushmore / Canadian Lodging Outlook / Sept 2002
Making The Ideal Hotel Investment / Stephen Rushmore / Canadian Lodging Outlook / Aug 2002
Reporting In at Six Months..../ Canadian Lodging Outlook / July 2002
The Global Approach To Hotel Valuations / Canadian Lodging Outlook / June 2002
Hotel Insurance Premiums on the Rise? / Canadian Lodging Outlook / May 2002 
Hotel Development Cost Can Determine Feasibility / Canadian Lodging Outlook / May 2002 
Hotel Internet Distribution Channels / January 2002 Month-to-Date Results / Canadian Lodging Outlook / April 2002 
2001 Was a Great Year If You Were in Edmonton! / December 2001 Year-to-Date Results / Canadian Lodging Outlook / Feb 2002 
2001 Canadian Hotel Sales / Canadian Lodging Outlook / Jan 2002 
The Effect on Capitalization Rates and Discount Factors After September 11 / Canadian Lodging Outlook / Dec 2001 
So How Bad Was September for Canadian Hotels.. Pretty Bad! / Nov 2001
So How Bad Was September for Canadian Hotels.. Pretty Bad! / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / September 2001 
Have Hotel Values in Canada Declined Since September 11th? You Bet They Have / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / August 2001 
The Popularity of Boutique Hotels / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / July 2001 
Rising Energy Costs Cause Concern in the Lodging Industry / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / June 2001 
Niagara Falls: With Supply Comes Demand / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / May 2001 
Does Supply Generate Demand? / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / May 2001 
Optimism With a Hint of Caution, As Analysts Predict a Softer Year for the Canadian Hotel Industry / Mar 2001 
Limited-Service Growth in Canada - Where�s it Going? / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / January 2001 
HVS Canada in Review - Year End 2000 / The Canadian Lodging Outlook / March 2001 
Canadian Lodging Outlook / May 2000 Year to Date Statistics / HVS International - Canada / July 2000 
The Rule of Thumb Method...Does It Still Hold Weight? / Elaine Sahlins - HVS / Oct 2000
What�s Hot and What�s Not in Western Canadian Hotel Markets / Mar 2000


To search Hotel Online data base of News and Trends Go to Hotel.Online Search

Home | Welcome! | Hospitality News | Classifieds | Catalogs & Pricing | Viewpoint Forum | Ideas/Trends
Please contact Hotel.Online with your comments and suggestions.