At the beginning of the previous semester, a special edition of The Fine Print informed the student body about the changes to the mess system on campus. One of the key modifications was the shift to two separate food service providers (FSPs). Another important change that happened recently was the takeover of the management of ANC by the institute. The English Press Club spoke to a senior member of the SSMS to know more.
Reasons behind the shift to two FSPs
1. Mass production of food leads to a general deterioration of quality. Splitting production was expected to help increase quality.
2. Sodexo’s monopoly needed to be broken as negotiations were becoming difficult with a sole vendor. The competitive model would enable better negotiations. The current FSPs were chosen out of eleven applicants as opposed to Sodexo’s selection in 2012, which was out of three applicants. This indicated that Pilani is now more accessible and that should give the SSMS the ability to negotiate better. Letting students pick their food provider would encourage healthy competition between the two FSPs and lead to better quality of service. However, the SSMS is yet to set up the mechanism to provide this choice.
Shifting to Two Kitchens
Under the previous system, food for all students was made entirely in the RPA central kitchen. The shift to two FSPs required two separate kitchens from which they could operate independently. Malviya mess was chosen as it was originally part of the girls’ hostel and had the facilities to cook food on a large scale. Hence, the SSMS found it financially prudent to refurbish the Malviya kitchen instead of any other mess. Another advantage was its location – it was favourable as it would enable them to divide the messes and distribute students equally between the two FSPs. However, the lack of a duct system in the Malviya mess proved to be a problem. As this compromised the safety of the workers, the FSP and the Institute bore the cost of the new installation.
Why choice has not been given
Introducing choice requires the FSPs and the SSMS to agree to a minimum guarantee on the number of students each FSP would serve. In the Letter of Intent—based on which the FSPs started operating—an equal division (approximately 2000 students each) was proposed. During negotiations, it was decided that a minimum guarantee of 1500 be there in the contract instead. The FSPs refused to agree to this proposal as they had already started investing in the messes and a low guarantee would cause instability and no security of operations. The SSMS member mentioned that providing absolute choice was impossible. Messes close to each other would have the same caterer, thus limiting some choice.
When the Institute increased the minimum guarantee to 1600, Aditya Caterers agreed and signed the contract. However, BCH is yet to sign the contract but is expected to do so soon.
Another major problem was the logistical constraint. ‘If a complete choice is given, there is a possibility that the FSP might reduce investment in a mess if it is under-populated. The number of workers allotted to a mess and its seating capacity are also limited,’ said the SSMS member.
The lack of a system to check which mess one goes to was another issue. The Institute had promised biometric scanners at the messes to aid in this regard, but this proposal is still in the pipeline. Until the biometric system is implemented, the SSMS is not infrastructurally equipped to provide choice. The SSMS member estimated the time taken to meet the infrastructural requirement to be three years. By this time, the current mess contracts will also end.
Another proposal being considered for implementing a choice-based system involved limiting the number of seats being open for choice. Once a maximum limit had been reached, the rest of the students would be allotted to another mess. For instance, each FSP would be assured a minimum of 1500 and a maximum of 2500 students. If more than 2500 students opted for a certain FSP, then the rest would automatically be allotted to the other FSP. After a few months of discussion, the SSMS decided against implementing this idea due to logistical and infrastructural constraints.
Current plan
‘The way the campus functions ensures that all male students will be shuffled by the institute and will thus get to experience both FSPs over time. However, girls don’t have this option, so it was decided that their FSP would be switched with the SV mess to give them an experience of both caterers. This exchange between these two messes will occur periodically’, said the SSMS member.
Effect of the recent change in Institute administration
According to the SSMS member, mess operations are directly influenced by the administration. The previous administration was familiar with the intricacies of the mess system whereas the current administration has recently been brought up to speed. ‘They have fresh perspectives on these issues, the SSMS, and how it functions. We hope that this doesn’t slow down the progress we’re making,’ said the representative.